SHCT 158 Van Amberg - A Real Presence - Religious and Social Dynamics of The Eucharistic Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg 1520-1530 PDF

A Real Presence
Studies in the History

of Christian Traditions
General Editor
Robert J. Bast
Knoxville, Tennessee
In cooperation with
Henry Chadwick, Cambridge
Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee
Eric Saak, Liverpool
Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York
Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen
John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana
Founding Editor
Heiko A. Oberman
VOLUME 158
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/shct

A Real Presence
Religious and Social Dynamics of the Eucharistic

Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg 15201530
By
Joel Van Amberg
LEIDEN BOSTON
2012
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Van Amberg, Joel.

A real presence : religious and social dynamics of the Eucharistic conflicts in early modern
Augsburg, 1520-1530 / by Joel Van Amberg.
p. cm. -- (Studies in the history of Christian traditions, ISSN 1573-5664 ; v. 158)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-21698-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Lords Supper--History--16th century.
2. Sacramentarians--Germany--Augsburg. 3. Augsburg (Germany)--Church history--
16th century. 4. Christian sociology--Germany--Augsburg--History--16th century. I. Title.
BV823.V36 2012
234.163--dc23
2011036720
ISSN 1573-5664
ISBN 978900421698
E-ISBN 9789004217393
Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill
NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

For Deirdre
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword..................................................................................................... ix
Introduction .................................................................................................1
Chapter 1 Augsburg, the Reformation, and

the Debate over the Eucharist................................................................7
Political Developments in Late Medieval and Early
Modern Augsburg ..............................................................................7
Economic Developments in Late Medieval and Early
Modern Augsburg ........................................................................... 12
Religion and Religious Developments in Augsburg through
the Sixteenth Century ..................................................................... 22
A Synopsis of the Eucharistic Debates in the Empire up to
the Marburg Colloquy..................................................................... 31
Chapter 2 The Schilling Affair: Populism, Revolt,

and the Eucharist.................................................................................. 43
Church and City: The Development of Zu den Barfern
in Augsburg ...................................................................................... 43
The Preaching and Program of Brother Hans Schilling.................. 49
Schilling, His Supporters, and the Eucharist as an
Interpretive Center .......................................................................... 62
Lay Communion and Rebellion: The Death of
Hans Speiser ..................................................................................... 70
Chapter 3 Michael Keller: The Builder of the Sacramentarian

Church in Augsburg ............................................................................ 83
Kellers Preparation for the Eucharistic Conflicts ............................ 83
The Growth of Early Sacramentarianism in
Augsburg, 1524 ................................................................................ 89
Kellers Early Church-Building Endeavors ..................................... 100
Kellers Polemical Program ............................................................... 135
Chapter 4 Sacramentarian Sects in Augsburg and their

Transition to Anabaptism ................................................................. 149
viii table of contents
Linking the Argument for Moral Improvement with a

Symbolic View of the Eucharist ................................................... 157
Urbanus Rhegius: The Merchant Preacher of Augsburg............... 172
Developments among the Sectarians in 1526 ................................ 182
The Transition to Anabaptism as Displayed in the Writings
of Eitelhans Langenmantel ........................................................... 187
Chapter 5 The Communal Dimension of the Eucharistic

Conflict in Augsburg ......................................................................... 203
The Theological Debate over the Canon ......................................... 203
Anthropological Perspectives on Sacrifice...................................... 205
Sacrifice and Community in the Medieval Mass ........................... 213
Reforms in the Eucharistic Service .................................................. 220
Michael Kellers Eucharistic Service and the Fraternity
of the Common Man ..................................................................... 223
Zwinglianism, Communalism, and the South German
Reformation ........................................................................................ 245
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 251
Work Cited .............................................................................................. 257
Index of Subjects..................................................................................... 265
Index of Places ........................................................................................ 267
Index of Persons ..................................................................................... 269

FOREWORD
I would like, first of all, to acknowledge my gratitude to a series of

dissertation advisors who helped guide an earlier iteration of this
project to its fulfillment. First, Professor Heiko A. Oberman, while
I was his student in the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation
Studies at the University of Arizona, suggested that I apply his concept
of the social history of ideas to the Eucharistic controversies of the
Reformation. It was under his direction that this project took its
initialform. When Professor Oberman tragically died in 2001, I was in
Germany conducting dissertation research. During that difficult time
I benefited enormously from the support, advice, and encouragement
of Professor Berndt Hamm of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universitt
Erlangen-Nrnberg. Upon my return to the States, I was privileged to
finish my dissertation under the direction of the new directior of the
Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies, Professor Susan
C. Karant Nunn. Her continued guidance and perspective have added
important dimensions to this project.
For financial support, I would like to thank the Fulbright Program,
which funded my initial research, and the Appalachian College
Association, whose John B. Stevenson Fellowship allowed me to return
to Germany to conduct additional research. Thanks also go to Professor
Robert J. Bast for accepting my manuscript in this series. I also want to
recognize the staff of the Augsburg city archive for their helpfulness
and professionalism. Finally, I would like to express gratitude to my
family, particularly my father, Ron Van Amberg, and my wife, Deirdre
Van Amberg, for the many years of support and encouragement that
helped bring this project to fruition.
INTRODUCTION
This study reconstructs and interprets the efforts of a devoted group of

largely laymen and women to advance a symbolic interpretation of the
Eucharist in the free imperial city of Augsburg between 1524 and 1530.
Although this is essentially a local study, the conclusions that it reaches
have relevance far beyond the walls of the city. In 1524 conflict broke
out within the fledgling Reformation movement over the nature of
Christs presence in the Eucharist. Trends emanating from Wittenberg
to the north and Zurich to the south converged in Augsburg to pro-
duce a local movement that questioned fundamental assumptions
about the church, the priesthood, contemporary social structures, and
the relationship between spirit and matter. Generations of scholarship
has analyzed this movement in the context of the academic debate over
the mode of Christs presence in the Eucharist. This traditional narra-
tive emphasizes the complex and nuanced debate among academically
trained Protestant theologians over the proper interpretation of the
words of institution, and in particular the phrase, This is my body.
Primacy of place is given to understanding the intellectual origins of
the interlocutors thought, systematically outlining the positions of
each participant, accounting for apparent inconsistencies and changes
in the theologians positions, and placing their Eucharistic theology in
the context of their broader theological outlook, all the while following
the shifting alliances among the debaters. Eventually the politicians
join the narrative as they become aware that a confessional agreement
will be the necessary precondition for an effective political alliance
against the Catholic powers.1
1
Representative of this tradition are Walther Khler, Zwingli und Luther: Ihr Streit
ber das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religisen Beziehungen, vol. 1, Die
religise und politische Entwicklung bis zum Marburger Religionsgesprch 1529 (hereaf-
ter Khler, Zwingli), Quellen und Forschung zur Reformationsgeschichte (Leipzig:
Verein fr Reformationsgeschichte, Vermittlungsverlag von M. Hensius Nachfolger,
1924); vol. 2, Vom Beginn der Marburger Verhandlungen 1529 bis zum Abschlu der
Wittenberger Konkordie von 1536 (Gtersloh: C. Bergelsmann Verlag, 1953); Thomas
Kaufmann, Das Abendmahlstheologie der Straburger Reformatoren bis 1528 (hereaf-
terKaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie), Beitrge zur historischen Theologie (Tbingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1992).
2 introduction
This approach has substantially advanced our understanding of the

issues at stake in the Eucharistic controversy for academic theologians
and political leaders, and has in the process created a taxonomy of
Eucharistic theology that allows historians to categorize their subjects
Eucharistic views with greater clarity and precision. However, the
movement in support of a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist
was not composed exclusively of theologians and rulers.2 For over two
decades scholarship on the German Reformation has recognized the
significant contribution of the laity to Reformation theology and has
explored the unique perspective that men and women, by virtue of
their lay experience and lack of formal theological training, brought to
religious debate.3 In the debate over the Eucharist, common people
artisans, merchants, soldiers, housewives, farmers, government
employeesformed the backbone of this movement and, where it was
successful, played an instrumental role in ensuring its advance. These
people wrote treatises, interrupted sermons, organized supporters,
staged public demonstrations, and even committed acts of violence to
promote their cause. They expended considerable effort and occasion-
ally put themselves at personal risk to support the seemingly academic
theological opinion that Christ was not corporeally present in the ele-
ments of the Eucharist. Within Germany this movement displayed
particular strength among the imperial free cities of the south.
Nevertheless, supporters of the Lutheran Eucharistic theology, which
maintained a corporeal presence of Christ in the bread and wine, were
also represented in these cities.
Also informing this study is the work of scholars who have detailed
how the Eucharistic host functioned as the symbolic center of the
medieval cultural system. The host served as an organizing, multiva-
lent symbol on which laity and clergy alike inscribed overlapping
meanings from different realms of experiencereligious, social, and
2
Traditional scholarship recognized this fact. See, for example, Kaufmann,
Abendmahlstheologie, 181203. Its research emphasis, however, lay elsewhere.
3
On this, see Paul A. Russell, Popular Pamphleteers in Southwest Germany 1521
1525 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Martin Arnold, Handwerker als
theologische Schriftsteller: Studien zu Flugschriften der frhen Reformation (15231525)
(hereafter Arnold, Handwerker) (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990); Miriam
Usher Chrisman, Conflicting Visions of Reform: German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets,
15191530 (hereafter Chrisman, Reform), Studies in German Histories (Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1996); Peter Blickle, From the Communal
Reformation to the Reformation of the Common Man (hereafter Blickle, Communal
Reformation), Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1998).
introduction 3
political.4 This book explores how in the early years of the Reformation,
the host could still function as an organizing symbol on which a group
of laity could project an agenda composed of overlapping religious,
political, and economic concerns. More recently, Christopher Elwood
has sought to demonstrate the political implications inherent in the
structure of Calvinist Eucharistic theology.5 Elwood explores the ideo-
logical affinity between a Calvinist theology of the Eucharist and a
political philosophy that legitimizes rebellion and desacralizes king-
ship. He argues that as a result of this affinity, individuals reading
Calvinistic Eucharistic tracts likely would have been nurtured and
confirmed in their nascent anti-monarchical or politically rebellious
views. Elwoods point, important for this study, is that a pure theologi-
cal position can bear implicit within it a latent critique of secular soci-
ety, waiting to be teased out by an astute or motivated reader. Most
recently, Lee Wandel has studied Protestant Eucharistic theology and
liturgy in the context of local conditions.6 Her book, which includes a
useful chapter on Augsburg, is sensitive to the ways in which the con-
text of a place and the interactions among individuals inhabiting a dis-
crete space shaped the contours of a local Eucharistic discourse and
practice. This study will demonstrate that the anti-corporeal Eucharistic
theology, as it emerged in Augsburg, was in part a response to the
unique political and economic conditions that prevailed in the city in
the early 1500s.
This study documents the methods employed by both laity and
clergy within the city of Augsburg to persuade their fellow residents to
adopt their position on this issue of profound importance to them.
Moreover, it uncovers the factors that motivated ordinary citizens to
struggle so passionately to ensure that this interpretation of the
Eucharist prevailed. Throughout the course of the investigation it
becomes clear that a series of issues of significance to the laity was at
stake in the debate over the Eucharist.
4
John Bossy, The Mass as a Social Institution 1200-1700 (hereafter Bossy,
Mass), Past and Present 100 (1983): 29-61; Mervyn James, Ritual Drama and Social
Body in the Late Medieval English Town (hereafter James, Ritual Drama), Past and
Present 98 (1983): 3-29; Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval
Culture (hereafter Rubin, Corpus) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
5
Christopher Elwood, The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and
the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999).
6
Lee Palmer Wandel, The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy
(hereafter Wandel, Eucharist) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
4 introduction
Throughout the medieval period, the Eucharistic host had func-

tioned as a sign upon which many layers of meaning were inscribed.
It would continue to function this way during this Reformation
dispute. It had a resonance that extended far beyond the confines of the
Eucharistic meal. This is what I intend by the title, A Real Presence.
The dispute over the meaning of the Eucharist stood at the center of a
nexus of issues that were of considerable relevance for the residents of
early sixteenth-century Augsburg, and for Germany as a whole. Ones
position on whether or not Christ was physically present in the
Eucharist tracked with ones position on an array of other issues that
are revealed to us to be interrelated only on closer inspection.
The central thesis of this book is that in the sixteenth century,
Augsburg laity, and especially guild members, understood their lives to
be increasingly controlled by a series of overlapping, mutually rein-
forcing hierarchieseconomic, political, and religiousthat super-
vised their access to things they believed to be important for their
well-being, particularly markets for their goods, city council offices,
and God. This control was established by the imposition of mediators
between them and those things to which they believed they had right-
ful access. As the Eucharistic host was the central symbol of
Christendom upon which meaning and counter-meaning had been
inscribed for centuries, it became, almost naturally, the symbol that
represented not just the religious, but the entire interrelated religious,
political, and economic program of these laity. The belief in a physical
presence of Christ in the Eucharistic host came to signify support for
hierarchy and mediation in all its forms, whereas asserting a non-
corporeal presence dissociated from the elements represented a rejec-
tion of those values. While it is true that pure theological concerns
played an important role in the Augsburg laitys passionate commit-
ment to a non-corporeal Eucharistic theology, the ability of that theol-
ogy to represent a cluster of pressing concerns to guild members,
artisans, and their families made it such an important and explosive
topic in Augsburg.
I would like to make a few clarifying remarks about terminology.
First, regarding terms of party affiliation, I use the term Evangelical to
refer to those advocates of church reform who drew their inspiration
from such reformers as Martin Luther and Huldreich Zwingli, disa-
vowed their obedience to the pope, and self-consciously broke with the
centuries-old tradition of the Latin Church. This was the term (evange-
lisch) with which they commonly referred to themselves, a word rooted
introduction 5
in the Greek term for the Gospel or the good news. The term
Protestant only came into being after the 1529 Diet of Speyer when a
group of Evangelical rulers protested its strongly anti-Evangelical
recess. While I occasionally use the term Catholic to refer to those who
remained loyal to Rome, I believe that the terms traditional or tradi-
tionalist capture the essence of the group more aptly. Many Evangelicals
also conceived of themselves as part of the catholic (that is, universal)
church but considered themselves no longer subject to Rome. The tra-
ditional believers were precisely the people who remained committed
to the tradition of the Latin Church.
I use the term Sacramentarian to refer to those individuals who
rejected an extraordinary presence of Christ in the Eucharistic meal,
especially in the elements. Sacramentarian in contemporary parlance
was not a value-neutral term. Originally intended to designate people
who denied transubstantiation, by the sixteenth century it had come to
refer to individuals who entirely denied the Real Presence of Christ in
the ceremony. Therefore, Sacramentarian always connoted heretic,
and it was precisely in this sense that Luther and his supporters meant
it. For this reason, the modern use of the term to refer in an impartial
way to this group is not ideal. However, the use of the other available
term, Zwinglian, is even more problematic. Although Zwingli was the
most prominent proponent of a symbolic view of the Eucharist, to
refer to all people who held this view as Zwinglians erroneously
assumes that all received their inspiration from Zwingli or in some way
identified with him. As we shall discover below, many Sacramentarians
in Augsburg were influenced primarily by Karlstadt and others, and
may even have felt antagonistic towards Zwingli. When I do use the
term Zwinglian, I am referring specifically to a supporter of the Zurich
reformer. I am freer with the term Lutheran because Luther was, in
fact, the undisputed head of the Evangelical party that maintained a
corporeal presence of Christ in the elements. Even people whose views
on the matter diverged from Luthers often sought, nonetheless, to be
identified with him and his position.
The terms commune, community, and congregation appear fre-
quently in my study, and all refer back to the single German word
Gemeinde. I have tried to be sensitive to the different associations that
each of these English words carries and to translate the German con-
cept appropriately in each instance. The term community is the most
broad of the three and can refer to an abstract idea, a concept, or a
construct as well as to a concrete group of individuals. Commune has
6 introduction
distinct political overtones and, in any case, refers to a group with

some sort of self-governing structure. Finally, congregation in this
study invariably refers to a religious association centered around a
local church.
The terms Eucharist, Lords Supper, Mass, and Sacrament (when cap-
italized) all refer to the ceremony commemorating Jesus last supper.
Mass and Sacrament describe the medieval ceremony that continued
to be celebrated in the sixteenth century by those who remained loyal
to Rome. Both of these terms emphasize priestly involvement and the
conferral of grace in the celebration. The term Lords Supper derives
from a reference in Pauls first letter to the Corinthians (11:17). The
term was commonly used by Sacramentarians. By it they intended to
emphasize the communal and egalitarian quality of the celebration
over against the traditional understanding of the ceremony. The term
Eucharist is the least polemically charged of the set, deriving from the
Greek term for thanksgiving. Because of its neutrality, I have chosen to
use it when referring to the issue in general terms. Naturally, when
translating passages from German or Latin, I have chosen the English
term that most clearly conveys the sense of the original. Finally, when
discussing the particular views of those involved in the Eucharistic dis-
putes, I have occasionally used the terms that they themselves would
have employed.
By sect I mean a discrete group comprising individuals united
around a common ideology or vision. Sects are characterized by a large
degree of internal coherence and usually define themselves over against
the larger society as they understand it.
Finally, I have provided the English translations of titles to works
only when those works have been translated into English in commonly
known editions. Otherwise, they are left in German or Latin.
CHAPTER ONE
AUGSBURG, THE REFORMATION, AND THE DEBATE OVER

THE EUCHARIST
Political Developments in Late Medieval and Early Modern Augsburg
The free imperial city of Augsburg was founded as a Roman garrison

in the early first century A.D., and by the end of the fifteenth century it
had become the most influential free imperial city in Swabia. Since the
demise of the house of Hohenstaufen in the mid-thirteenth century,
the ancient duchy of Swabia had dissolved into a patchwork of small
and medium-sized ecclesiastical and secular lordships and numerous
free imperial cities. Augsburg and Ulmboth lying within the region
of Swabiaalong with Nuremberg and Strasbourg, formed a self-
conscious group of the four largest and most powerful free imperial
cities in southern Germany.
Like many free imperial cities, Augsburg in the early Middle Ages
was an Episcopal city. Bishops, whose existence in Augsburg can be
documented to the eighth century, exercised judicial authority over
the citys inhabitants and possessed the right to tax their economic
activities. The bishops Augsburg subjects originally would have con-
sisted primarily of small groups of artisans, soldiers, and administra-
tors who provided necessary services to the bishop and his clergy. In
addition, a settlement of merchants lived in Augsburg under the pro-
tection of the king, although they were still subject to the bishop. By
the twelfth century, this settlement had grown substantially and was
agitating for increased judicial and administrative powers.
The year 1276 saw the inauguration of Augsburgs history as a free
imperial citya city under the direct lordship of the emperor. In that
year Emperor Rudolph I of Hapsburg visited Augsburg to hold an
imperial diet. The residents took the opportunity to petition him for an
official recognition of their rights. The emperor granted them the right
to self-administration and taxation, allowing them to set up a twelve-
member city council.1 The bishop, however, still retained meaningful
1
Wolfgang Zorn, Augsburg: Geschichte einer deutschen Stadt (hereafter Zorn,
Augsburg) (Augsburg: Hieronymus Mhlberger Verlag, 1972), 109.
8 chapter one
financial and regulatory powers, which he exercised through his offi-

cial, the Burggraff. Final judicial authority lay in the hands of the city
Vogt, who represented royal authority in the jurisdiction. In 1316
Ludwig IV issued an edict declaring Augsburg to be forever under the
direct lordship of the emperor, making no mention of Episcopal
authority.2 The citys powers were again enhanced in 1426 when King
Sigismund granted the city the right to recommend the appointment
of the city and territorial Vogt.3 By this point, Augsburgs transition to
self-administration was for all intents and purposes complete.
In the fourteenth century, a new struggle for political power
unfolded, this time within the city, between the ruling families that
controlled the city government and the large number of disenfran-
chised artisans living within the city. The artisans had begun organiz-
ing themselves into guilds in the early fourteenth century, with the first
documented mention of a guild in Augsburgthe leatherworkers (die
gemain der ledrer)occurring in 1324.4 By the 1340s the patricians
had been forced to share a limited amount of power with the guild
community. Dissatisfaction continued to mount, however, and in
October 1368 armed artisans rose up and took over critical city fortifi-
cations and buildings.5 After negotiating with the patrician rulers and
consulting with other cities that had undergone guild revolutions, the
city established a guild constitution. All artisans were incorporated
into seventeen guilds, which together sent representatives to the small
and large councils. The artisans were to possess a guaranteed majority
on the council, although the patricians would be allowed to fill one of
the two mayoral positions and also other important posts in the city.
Augsburgs guild constitution would endure until 1548, when, in the
aftermath of the Schmalkaldic War, Emperor Charles V restored a
patrician constitution to the city.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that Augsburg was gov-
erned by common artisans dividing their time between workshop and
council chamber. Particularly at the highest levels of government,
2
Zorn, Augsburg, 121.
3
Zorn, Augsburg, 142. The jurisdiction of the Landvogt encompassed the small ter-
ritorial holdings of the city.
4
5
For an account of the guild revolution in Augsburg, see Friedrich Blendinger, Die
Zunfterhebung von 1368, in Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg: 2000 Jahre von der
Rmerzeit bis zur Gegenwart (hereafter Gottlieb, Geschichte), ed. Gunther Gottlieb
et al. (Stuttgart: Konrad Thiss Verlag, 1985), 150153.
augsburg and the eucharist 9
wealthy guild members joined their patrician counterparts in filling

powerful positions. Between 1396 and 1515, 94% of all holders of
important offices in Augsburg came from the wealthiest 3% of the pop-
ulation.6 This group of elites, known as the Mehrer der Gesellschaft,
were composed of patricians and guild members (mostly from the
merchant guild), who were related by marriage to a patrician family
from Augsburg or another South German city. Those belonging to this
society were allowed to frequent its tavern, the Herrentrinkstube.
The political and economic developments of the late fifteenth and
early sixteenth centuries served to increase the degree to which the
Augsburg city council perceived the need to draw on the wealthy and
well-connected to run the government. As Augsburg began to play a
larger role in regional and imperial affairs, and as its trade networks
spread across the continent, experienced civic leaders emerged who
could interact with the great princes of Europe and protect the inter-
ests of the city. Although the cleft between the ruling elite and its fel-
low citizens had been growing since the early fifteenth century, this
new role increased the distance between the two groups. Under these
circumstances, the number of people deemed qualified to manage the
affairs of the city shrank to a very selective group. This group was
increasingly successful at replacing the civic ideology revolving around
concepts of citizen and commune with the magisterial ideology of
subject and lordship, promulgated by their noble and princely
counterparts.7
As a consequence of its hard-won autonomy, Augsburg became
involved in fourteenth-century imperial politics. However, its foray
into foreign affairs did not yield the desired results, but rather pro-
voked a decades-long reticence to return to the world of high-stakes
power politics. In 1376 fourteen Swabian cities formed a Swabian civic
league to protect their interests against the designs of the dukes of
Bavaria and Wrttemberg. Augsburg agreed to join the league in 1379.
6
Joachim Jahn, Die Augsburger Sozialstruktur im 15. Jahrhundert (hereafter
Jahn, Sozialstruktur), in Gottlieb, Geschichte, 191.
7
This magisterial ideology in Augsburg does not develop in the second half of the
fifteenth century out of nowhere. As early as the 1330s Augsburg patricians were al-
lowed to acquire feudal property and become feudal lords with the right of high jus-
tice. They were, as one source put it, knight and citizen (Zorn, Augsburg, 123). The
term magistrate (Obrigkeit) is first attested in Augsburg sources in 1439 (Jrg Rogge,
Fur den Gemeinen Nutzen: Politisches Handeln und Politikverstndnis vom Rat und
Burgerschaft in Augsburg im Sptmittelalter [hereafter Rogge, Nutzen], Studia
Augustana [Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996], 169).
10 chapter one
By the early 1380s the league had grown to comprise forty cities and
had contracted alliances in Austria, Switzerland, and Alsace.8 During a
series of battles in 1381 between the civic league and various knightly
confederations, the bishop of Augsburg gave aid to the citys enemies.
The city took the opportunity to raze some Episcopal buildings and
force all clergy either to accept citizenship and pay taxes, or leave the
city; most chose to depart.
In 1387 the duke of Bavaria provoked a confrontation with the civic
league and suffered some early defeats. Rather than accept peace terms,
however, the war party in the league pressed on with the war. Augsburg,
which with other cities had argued for peace, found itself forced by its
alliance partners into battles it did not want to fight. This scenario
would repeat itself many times in Augsburgs history. The Bavarians
now had the support of princes and nobles from around South
Germany, and in August 1388 the army of the duke of Wrttemberg
along with other lords defeated the cities army in the battle of
Dffingen. As a result, King Wenceslas ordered the dissolution of the
Swabian civic league. Augsburg was forced to pay the duke of Bavaria
10,000 guilders, pay the bishop of Augsburg 7,000 guilders, and read-
mit the exiled clergy. It was forbidden to grant citizenship to any clerics
for ten years.
In the mid-fifteenth century the city was again brought into a series
of wars, some to its advantage, and others to its disadvantage. Usually,
however, Augsburg was thrust into wars based on the interests of the
emperor or its league allies. It was not until the end of the fifteenth
century that Augsburg finally developed a coherent policy for gaining
a stronger voice in important regional and imperial decision-making
processes and for contracting alliances that genuinely served its inter-
ests. Its most consequential decision was to align itself with the house
of Hapsburg. Augsburg merchants had been lending money to the
Hapsburgs and had been involved in the Hapsburg mining industry
since the 1450s. When in 1488 the Hapsburg Emperor Frederick III
(14401493) formed the Swabian League with Swabian nobility and
cities to offset the power of the dukes of Wrttemberg and Bavaria,
Augsburg was a charter member.9 With Bavaria up against its eastern
8
For a discussion of the Swabian civic league, see Karl Schnith, Die Reichsstadt
Augsburg im Sptmittelalter (13681493), in Gottlieb, Geschichte, 155159; Zorn,
Augsburg, 135136.
9
Heinrich Lutz, Augsburg und seine politische Umwelt 14901555 (hereafter
Lutz, Augsburg), in Gottlieb, Geschichte, 414.
border and Wrttemberg not far to the west, Augsburg welcomed a

closer alliance with the emerging Hapsburg power. An extraordinary
level of affection and cooperation developed between Fredericks
son, Emperor Maximilian I (14931519), and the city of Augsburg.
Maximilian resided in Augsburg for extended periods of time, as each
side used the occasions to enhance its stature.10 The Hapsburgs were
able to count on Augsburg for loans, trading expertise, and help with
wars, whether against the Swiss in 1499 or the Bavarians in 15051506.
Augsburg could rely on the Hapsburgs to defend its economic interests
and occasionally to support its political goals.
Augsburgs principal political goal was to increase the influence of
the free imperial cities in imperial government and in the Swabian
League. It could not depend on Maximilians support in the former.
Nevertheless, at the 1489 diet, the cities managed to present themselves
as a unified group alongside the other estates. Finally, in 1500, against
the wishes of the emperor, the cities were officially recognized as an
estate of the empire and given two of the twenty seats in the Regiement,
the governing body of the empire.11 In 1496, Augsburg, dissatisfied
with changes made to the constitution of the Swabian League, with-
drew in protest. This tactic bore fruit, as Maximilian intervened and
helped oversee the drafting of a new constitution that conceded greater
authority to the cities and redistributed the financial burden. Augsburg
benefited from its close relationship to Maximilian. By ensuring more
power for the cities, Maximilian, for his part, had increased his lever-
age against the dukes of Wrttemberg and Bavaria, who were also in
the alliance (the duke of Wrttemberg would later withdraw).
Throughout the first decades of the 1500s the fortunes of the two
troublesome duchies waxed and waned, as did those of the Swabian
League. Hapsburg victories in the 15051506 Bavarian war of succes-
sion made the Wittelsbachs reluctant to challenge the Hapsburgs for
decades. The fact that the Wittelsbach lands were often divided also
worked to the advantage of Augsburg.12 In 1519 Duke Ulrich of
10
For the relationship between Augsburg and Maximilian I, see Christoph Bhm,
Die Reichsstadt Augsburg und Kaiser Maximilian I (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke
Verlag, 1998).
11
Lutz, Augsburg, 415.
12
As a result of the Bavarian War of Succession, Albrecht IV of Bavaria-Munich
(14651508) managed to unite all the Bavarian lands under his rule. Albrecht was
determined to retain the duchy undivided and on July 8, 1506, issued an edict on pri-
mogeniture stating that the duchy was forever to remain united and that rule would be
passed down to the firstborn of the male line. When Albrecht died in 1508, rule passed
12 chapter one
Wrttemberg attacked and seized the imperial city of Reutlingen. This

belligerent action mobilized the Swabian League to act. The League
defeated Ulrich, expelled him from his territory, and gave it over to the
Hapsburgs to administer. Augsburgs principal ally was now dominant
in South Germany, and its greatest antagonists were tamed. The
Peasants War of 1525 altered the situation somewhat. While not sym-
pathetic to the peasants, Augsburg counseled a milder approach than
the princes of the League were willing to consider. They were also
faulted for the fact that some merchants negotiated with the peasants
to ensure that their wagonloads of goods were able to pass through
occupied territory. As the war progressed and victories against the
peasants mounted, the balance of power in Swabia began to shift again
in favor of the great princes, in particular the duke of Bavaria. This
increasingly assertive, staunchly Catholic duchy would pose a signifi-
cant concern to Augsburg for the coming decades.
Economic Developments in Late Medieval and Early Modern Augsburg
Although dedicated to maintaining the citys political liberty, the late

fifteenth- and sixteenth-century foreign policy of Augsburgs leaders
was as concerned with ensuring the continuation of the citys prosper-
ity. The first great economic expansion in Augsburg developed out of
the production and trade in cloth, particularly in fustian, a cotton-
linen weave. As production expanded in the 1360s weavers began to
pour into the city (among whom was the weaver Hans Fugger, ancestor
of the famous Augsburg Fugger family). Since at least the 1330s
Augsburg merchants had been involved in trading goods from Venice
in Frankfurt and the Low Countries.13 In 1395, fustian weavers from
to his fifteen-year-old firstborn son Wilhelm IV (15081550). Wilhelm and his advi-
sors embarked on an ambitious state-centralization plan, which aroused the animosity
of the powerful Bavarian estates. Further, Maximilian was uneasy with the idea of a
unified Bavarian state. As a result, the estates joined together with Albrechts wife,
Kunigunde, who was the sister of Maximilian, to demand that her son Wilhelm share
his reign with his younger brother Ludwig. The brothers worked out a compromise
whereby they would officially share administration of an undivided duchy. In practice,
however, Ludwig X (15161545) retained a largely independent court at Landshut.
Ludwig never married, and Wilhelm was able, on his death, to pass down a truly uni-
fied duchy to his son, Albrecht V (15501579). (Andreas Kraus, ed. Handbuch der
bayerischen Geschichte, vol. 2 (Munich: C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1988),
318330.)
13
Ibid., 123.
Augsburg arrived at the Frankfurt fair to sell their wares.14 Trade net-
works already established by Augsburg merchants facilitated the sale of
Augsburg fustian. Further, Augsburgs geographic location facilitated
the development of trade networks. Its location by the Lech (a tribu-
tary of the Danube), as well as by the Wertach (a tributary of the Lech),
and its proximity to roads running south to Austria and then into Italy,
north to Nuremberg and beyond, and west to Frankfurt greatly facili-
tated the transportation of goods by Augsburg merchants.
The 1420s and 1430s were times of economic expansion and wealth
creation. In this period, entrepreneurs made fortunes in the trade pri-
marily of cloth. The benefits of economic growth seem to have been
distributed broadly across the income spectrum.15 In contrast, the
1440s through the 1460s were difficult economic times for the middle
and lower classes in Augsburg. Wages were depressed; prices increased;
the city government could not cover its expenses and had to continu-
ally raise taxes. War with Bavaria ravaged the countryside, disrupted
trade, and sent refugees into Augsburg. In 1457, the council felt com-
pelled to drive 2,000 poor people from the city. Whereas in 1408, the
percentage of the population with no taxable possessions reached a
low point of 33.7%, by 1472, the size of the untaxed population peaked
at 60.5%. However, during this time, the ranks of the wealthy seem to
have grown. In 1396, 2.4% of the population was worth over 1,000 fl.,
whereas in 1492 that number had grown to 4.7%. Although the dates
on both ends fall outside the crisis years, the trajectory of the trend
isclear.
The second economic boom in Augsburg began in the 1480s and
lasted through the early decades of the sixteenth century. International
trade, mining operations, and the credit and banking business, not tex-
tile production, drove this expansion.16 The astute management of
international relations became, with such an economy, all the more
14
15
Jahn, Sozialstruktur, 188.
16
It would be wrong, however, to underestimate the continued importance of tex-
tile production for the Augsburg economy. Between 1492 and 1494 Augsburg weavers
produced around 52,000 pieces of fustian cloth, an average of 26,000 pieces a year.
Between 1519 and 1524 production had risen to over 450,000 pieces of fustian, an av-
erage of 90,000 pieces a year. Then between 1525 and 1529 approximately 700,000
pieces of fustian were woven, an average of 140,000 pieces a year. Production of the
cloth would continue to increase significantly through the rest of the century (Herman
Kellenbenz, Wirtschaftsleben der Bltezeit (hereafter Kellenbenz, Wirtschaftsleben),
in Gottlieb, Geschichte, 280281).
14 chapter one
critical. In 1448 taxable wealth in Augsburg was worth 950,000 fl. By

1466, the value had fallen to 725,000 fl. In 1516, the figure reached its
high point of 3.2 million fl. That figure represents an average 3.5%
annual rate of growth between 1472 and 1516. In contrast to the boom
years of the early fifteenth century, most of the benefits from the eco-
nomic growth went to the wealthy.17 Precisely because of the lopsided
economic expansion, the period of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries in Augsburg was characterized by increased social tensions.
Sixteenth-century Augsburg was most well known by its contempo-
raries, as it is by modern people, for its great merchant and banking
houses: the Welser, the Fugger, the Hchstetter, the Baumgartner, the
Gossembrot, and the Herwart. As mentioned above, Augsburg mer-
chants had been involved in international trade since the fourteenth
century. In the fifteenth century they expanded into the areas of cur-
rency exchange and loans. These practices became a significant enough
component of the Augsburg economy that in 1439 Augsburg took a
step common in many other German cities at the time, and expelled all
the Jews from the city. Jewish financial activities were viewed no longer
as a necessary part of the economy, but as unwanted competition with
the business of Christian financiers.
It was, however, the growing mining industry that combined with
trade and finance to produce Augsburgs extraordinary economic
growth. Mining, primarily of silver and copper, expanded rapidly in
central Europe beginning in the 1460s. The 1460s were a period of
intense monetary contraction. Mints for silver coin were lying idle and
the value of those coins was increasing. Therefore, the demand for sil-
ver to coin grew substantially. Copper was also in high demand in
order to produce the ever more popular bronze artillery. This level of
increased demand coincided with the discovery of new veins of copper
and silver and the invention of new technologies to facilitate their
extraction.18 Copper and silver were discovered in the Hapsburgs
Tyrolian lands in 1456. In order to exploit the new finds, the Hapsburgs
were in need of precisely what the Augsburgers had to offer: capital to
lend for the costly operations and a trade network through which to
17
For details on the distribution of the wealth created during this period of eco-
nomic expansions, see my discussion in chapter four below.
18
John H. Munro, Patterns of Trade, Money, and Credit, in Handbook of European
History 14001600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, vol. 1, eds.
Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 167.
sell metals that were not destined for Hapsburg mints. The Meutings
were the first merchant family to become involved in the Hapsburgs
Tyrolian mines, lending 35,000 fl. to the archduke Sigmund of Austria-
Tyrol (14771496). He received in return the silver output from his
copper mines (silver and copper are often found together in their natu-
ral state). Georg Gossembrot made a similar arrangement with
Sigmund in 1483: in exchange for a loan, Gossembrot received copper
ore to sell himself. In 1488 the Fuggers loaned Sigmund the enormous
sum of 150,000 fl.19 The Fuggers then invested the return on their loans
to the Hapsburgs in Austrian, Hungarian, and Bohemian mines.20 The
Fuggers set up smelting and casting facilities where they produced
marketable products from their ore. Then they sold their silver and
copper, as well as Augsburg fustian in Venice, where they purchased
spices and fine textiles. They would transport all of these products to
Frankfurt, Leipzig, Antwerp, and Breslau for sale.21 The Fuggers strat-
egy was enormously successful; by 1546, under Anton Fugger, the firm
had amassed a net worth of 5 million fl., an amount unsurpassed
among Europes trading firms. Many other Augsburg merchant houses,
including the Welser, Herwart, and Baumgartner, were involved in
selling metals throughout Europe. The Welsers, for instance, were
based primarily in Milan, where they sold their silver and copper and
bought merchandise to sell in Leipzig, Antwerp, Spain, Portugal, and
as of 1526the New World.
Behind this success lay the all-important alliance with the Hapsburg
dynasty. The danger for these Augsburg merchant firms was that over-
production of silver and copper would drive prices below the level of
profitability. Therefore, merchant firms like the Fugger, Welser,
Gossembrot, and others formed cartels to regulate the production and
sale of the metals. The Hapsburgs were aware of these policies and
were willing to support them when necessary. In 1523 the imperial
Secretary of the Treasury (Reichsfiskal) brought charges against six
important Augsburg merchant firms for monopolistic practices.22
Augsburg knew that it could not depend for assistance on its allies
among the other cities, who resented its special privileges and its
19
A small artisan at that time might expect to make 3040 fl. a year.
20
21
Kellenbenz, Wirtschaftsleben, 270278.
22
16 chapter one
trading practices.23 The nobility and princes, for their part, had culti-
vated a long-standing animosity towards the mercantile world and
would have looked forward to Augsburgs downfall.
Augsburg fell back on its alliance with the Hapsburgs. In 1519 Jakob
Fugger had loaned Charles V 543,585 fl. to secure his election as
emperor.24 Now the city sent a delegation to the imperial court in Spain
to negotiate with Charles. In September 1523 Charles ordered the
treasury secretary to halt the proceedings against the Augsburg mer-
chant firms. In May 1525, he issued an imperial law ending all actions
against monopolies on ore and metal.25 The Augsburg merchants care-
fully cultivated relationship with the Hapsburgs had allowed the city
councils representatives to secure their financial futures. Whether a
less favorable outcome to this financial crisis would have had a signifi-
cant impact on the vast majority of Augsburg residents, who were not
involved in international trade, is, however, far from certain.
Beginning in the early 1520s a series of religious developments,
which came to be known as the Reformation, threatened the future of
this alliance that the citys economic and political elite valued so highly.
Luthers cause and the Evangelical movement in general received con-
siderable support among the Augsburg citizenry as well as among
23
During a 1522 city meeting in Elingen the cities discussed the lifting of tolls and
the abolition of monopolies. Although the cities were in agreement on the matter of
tolls, Augsburg opposed the other cities, which wanted to abolish monopolies
(Friedrich Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 1, 15171530 [hereafter Roth,
Reformationsgeschichte] [Munich: Theodor Ackermann, 1901], 99). The level of mis-
trust felt by the Augsburg elite towards the other South-German cities regarding their
designs on Augsburgs economic activities is manifest in a summary of a debate held in
the Augsburg council of thirteen about whether to conclude a defensive pact with the
Evangelical-oriented cities during the upcoming meeting of the free imperial cities in
July and September 1525. The jurist Dr. Johann Rehlinger argues against becoming
dependent on the cities, because they are opposed to Augsburgs monopolies and other
matters of interest to the city. Augsburg ought not to expect any loyalty from them.
Den stetten anzuhanngen hab er grosse sorgfeltigkait unnd das die gemainen stet den
von augspurg nit allein des monopolien, sonder auch annder sachen halben zuwider
steen und kain trew bey inen zuversechen welhe stat am grossten angriffen werden die
anndern alle verzagt sein. Quoted in Andreas Gner, Weltliche Kirchenhoheit und
reichsstdtische Reformation: Die Augsburger Ratspolitik des milten und mitleren
weges 15201534 (hereafter Gner, Kirchenhoheit), Colloquia Augustana (Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1999), 47, n. 55. During the city meetings later that year, the
Evangelical-oriented cities failed to reach an agreement on an alliance, in large part
because of Augsburgs concerns about protecting its trade monopolies (Gner,
Kirchenhoheit, 52).
24
Kellenbenz, Wirtschaftsleben, 286.
25
much of the civic elite.26 Katarina Sieh-Burens identifies four major

political networks that bound together the ruling families of Augsburg.
The Welser network, which linked such families as the Herwart,
Langenmantel, Peutinger, Bimmel, Imhof, and Vetter, inclined towards
a moderate, cautious Protestantism. After the movement split into
supporters of Zwingli and supporters of Luther, many in the Welser
network sided with Luther. The Herbrot network included the Hoser,
Regel, and Eislin families, and supported a Zwinglian or later Stras-
bourgian form of Protestantism. The less well-defined Seitz network
also sided with the Zwinglians. Only the Fugger network, which
included the Baumgartner and Artzt families, remained faithful to the
Roman Church. However, after Ulrich Artzt died in 1527, none of the
networks members filled the mayoral office.27 The picture that emerges
is one of a city council largely supportive of some form of reformation
for the church.
Both out of personal conviction and so as not to antagonize a restive
population, the city council adopted a religious policy that was friendly
towards the Evangelical movement. However, the utmost caution was
in order. First, powerful forces were allied against the Evangelical
movement, a concern for all political entities that supported the
Evangelical cause. The possibility was real that the emperor or mem-
bers of the nobility, some of whomlike the duke of Bavarialay
uncomfortably close to Augsburg, might, if they so chose, exact a heavy
price from those who had defied the Roman Church. Augsburgs lead-
ers, however, were burdened with a special set of problems that did not
affect other cities or territories. They realized that the preservation of
their economic networks and privileges depended on remaining in the
good graces of the emperor. They knew that opposing his religious
policy would risk a loss of his support. If that were to happen, there
was no doubt that a group of friends and enemies would unite to bring
an end to Augsburgs economic dominance.
In the face of this treacherous situation, the city council decided
to allow the introduction of the Reformation in the city and to refuse
to condemn Luther or his views, while at the same time declining to
26
The progress of the Reformation in Augsburg will be discussed below.
27
Katarina Sieh-Burns, Oligarchie, Konfession und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert: Zur
sozialen Verflechtung der Augsburger Brgermeister und Stadtpfleger 15181618,
Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultten der Universitt Augsburg (Munich: Ernst
Vgel, 1986), 35138.
18 chapter one
declare openly for the Evangelical cause. The Augsburg city secretary
Konrad Peutinger embodied and directed the cautious policy of loyalty
to the Hapsburg dynasty, protection of Augsburgs economic interests,
and commitment to moderate church reforms.28 During a discussion
of the council of thirteen concerning the proper approach of Augsburgs
delegates towards the religion question at an upcoming 1525 city meet-
ing, Peutinger concluded that the goal should be to seek after the mid-
dle way.29 Peutinger was an early supporter of Luther and an advocate
of church reform, but his support for the Evangelical movement waned
as the movement took a more destructive trajectory. By early 1525 he
declared that he was willing to accept that while Luther had brought
forth valid truths from Scripture, he had also taken doubtful positions
on certain matters, and these should be rejected. However, Peutinger
remained adamant that the city council accept no statement that called
Luthers teaching seductive or heretical.30
Peutinger had been Augsburgs representative at the Diet of Worms
and was eager to mediate a compromise between Luther and his tradi-
tionalist opponents. No compromise was forthcoming, and the so-
called Edict of Worms declared Luther an obstinate, schismatic, and
manifest heretic. It ordered that the excommunication threat against
Luther be enforced. Both Luther and his supporters were subject to
arrest and to the seizure of their property. All reading or distributing of
Luthers writings was forbidden, as were all anonymous or pseudony-
mous writings. All books by Luther were to be burned, and no more
were to be printed. The edict, dated May 8, 1521, arrived in Augsburg
on August 16 with the imperial command that it be proclaimed. Being
always reluctant to disobey a direct imperial command, the Augsburg
council waited a month, until September 14, then had a copy of the
edict nailed to the door of the city hall and read aloud.31 However, they
failed to enforce any of the orders presented in the edict. They had
performed only what was absolutely necessary so as not to appear fla-
grantly disobedient to the emperor.
28
Gner, Kirchenhoheit, 47.
29
Nach dem mitlern weg zusuchen woll er beschlossen haben (Gner,
Kirchenhoheit, 47, n. 55). The council of thirteen was the most exclusive council in the
city, made up of the ten principal office holders, one patrician representative, and two
guild representatives.
30
Peutinger makes these statements in the same discussion mentioned above re-
garding whether Augsburg should join an Evangelical civic league (Ibid.).
31
Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 6667.
Augsburg was a center of book publication, and the city council was
under continual pressure from the popes representatives to suppress
the publication of Luthers books. It also lay in the councils interest to
dampen incendiary disputes. Perhaps for both of these reasons, on
August 28, 1520, it prohibited the publication of books relating to the
current theological dispute without the knowledge and approval of the
council, as well as writings that were insulting or demeaning. A group
of printers was made to swear that they would obey this edict.32 On
March 7, 1523, in response to more pressure from Rome, the council
issued another edict on printing. This edict prohibited the printing,
without the knowledge of the mayor, of libelous books or books lack-
ing the names of the author or printer.33 Neither edict, however, was
put into effect. Only towards the end of the decade would the council
punish printers for publishing scandalous material, and then only
under exceptional circumstances. For the most part, the publication
of Reformation books continued unabated throughout the decade.
Through these vaguely worded prohibitions on publishing, the council
was able to signal to imperial and papal observers that it was attempt-
ing to restrain the religious debates, while at the same time refraining
from repudiating the Evangelical movement or taking steps to effect its
suppression.
The imperial diets of 15221523, 1524, and 1526 attempted to
achieve a superficial consensus on the religious situation, deferring a
resolution of religious differences until a church council could con-
vene. The recess of the 15221523 Diet of Nuremberg declared that
until the next council, only the Gospel according to the interpretation
of Scripture now approved and received by the church was to be
taught. The recess of the 1524 Diet of Nuremberg stated that the estates
promised to enforce the Worms edict insofar as they recognize them-
selves as bound to it and as far as it was possible to obey and imple-
ment it. Again, the recess expressed the hope that a national council
would be able to resolve the religious disputes. Finally, the recess of the
1526 Diet of Speyer determined that each ruler should govern his
affairs as each hopes and trusts to answer to God and his imperial
majesty. The diet, in effect, suspended the Edict of Worms and allowed
each government to proceed in matters of religion as it saw fit.34
32
33
Ibid., 3637.
34
See Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991),
340343.
20 chapter one
Augsburg was content to maintain this fiction of unity and formal

obedience, while letting the Reformation advance under its watch.
Ithad become increasingly difficult, however, for the council to assert
that it stood apart from the religious changes taking place in its city. As
of 1524, four of the citys Evangelical preachers were on the public pay-
roll. Nevertheless, the council assiduously avoided a public, explicit
identification with the cause of the Reformation so as not to break
openly with the emperor.
Some civic leaders were more willing to consider taking formal steps
at the imperial level that would declare their Evangelical allegiance.
During the discussion regarding the 1525 city meeting, the consensus
of the council of thirteen seems to have been that the city should nei-
ther agree to praise or implement the Edict of Wormsfor that would
be against Godnor to form a special league to defend the gospel.
Various speakers recommended that the Augsburg delegation care-
fully assess the positions of the other cities and then take the most
prudent and the middleor even most middleway.35 They were
looking to maintain a continually renegotiated settlement that would
preserve both formal obedience to the emperors religious agenda and
the commitment to many aspects of the Reformation. This view reflects
the essence of Gners argument about the intentions of the Augsburg
city council. He maintains that it was not engaged in unprincipled or
irresolute waffling between obedience and disobedience, commitment
to the Reformation and a willingness to abandon it.36 Rather, its goal
was to seek a middle way in both the issue of obedience to the emperor
and commitment to reform, in the hopes of being able to bridge the
chasm between the two.
By the 1526 Diet of Speyer, many Evangelical leaders were begin-
ning to sense that the days of compromise were coming to an end.
Strasbourg was seeking to arrange a meeting of the free imperial cities
to coordinate imperial and religious policy. Further, Philipp of Hesse
approached many of the large free imperial cities to discuss an
Evangelical league. Augsburg preferred to stand apart from such
openly confessional dealings. However, with the 1529 Diet of Speyer,
formal confessional neutrality became almost impossible. The Emperor
Charles had pacified the French and the pope, and was planning a trip
to Germany to bring his unruly subjects into compliance. His brother
35
Gner, Kirchenhoheit, 47, n. 55.
36
Gner, Kirchenhoheit, 48, n. 56.
Ferdinand, who presided over the diet, was in no mood for a compro-
mise on matters of religion. He delivered a fiery opening address on
March 15 where he made it clear that the rights of self-determination
in religious matters that the estates had read into the recess of the 1526
Diet of Speyer were about to be nullified and that the religious innova-
tions had to stop. On April 67, the majority voted, effectively, to rein-
state the Edict of Worms and halt all religious innovation. The
Zwinglians, with their symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, were
singled out for condemnation. On April 19, a group of Evangelical gov-
ernments submitted a protest against the revocation of the 1526 recess.
On April 22, six princes and representatives from fourteen cities
formed the first Evangelical defensive association, which came to be
known as the as the Schmalkaldic League, pledging to assist each other
if anyone was attacked. On April 25, the Evangelicals issued an appeal
declaring that they intended to abide by the 1526 recess.
The Augsburg representatives, after much deliberation, decided to
support the recess with its harsh new ruling on religion. This act
brought consternation and outrage among Evangelicals at home and
abroad. The representatives were simply unwilling, at that point, to
directly violate the will of the emperor (or of his brother Ferdinand), or
to accept a vision of an empire divided strictly along religious lines.
The following year, with Charles V present at the Diet of Augsburg, the
Catholic forces pressed their advantage. The recess gave the Protestants
until April 15, 1531, to reconsider their state of rebellion, after which
point legal and armed measures against them were threatened.
The Augsburg city council realized that the period was over during
which it could maintain formal obedience to the emperors religious
agenda while allowing the Reformation in Augsburg to advance.
Consequently, it, together with the large council, decided to reject the
religious articles of the Diet of Augsburg, while declaring its obedience
to the emperor in all temporal matters. At the same time the council
offered to provide the emperor with a much-needed loan. The message
was clear: the Augsburg city council was eager to maintain its tradi-
tional political and economic relationship with the Hapsburgs, despite
its religious differences.37
Augsburg was now on a trajectory that would lead to both its sign-
ing of the Wittenberg Concord and its entrance into the Protestant
37
22 chapter one
Schmalkaldic League in 1536, and its decision to abolish the mass and
expel the Catholic clergy in 1537. Its commitment to the Protestant
Reformation was now clear. Throughout the first half of the 1530s, the
council tried out its politics of the middle way on a new figure: Martin
Luther. On the one hand, it attempted to maintain cordial relations
with Luther, and therefore with the powerful Lutheran princes. On the
other hand, it worked to extirpate confessional Lutheranism from the
city in favor of a Bucerian religion imported from Strasbourg.38 Luther
was not fooled, and the city had to change course. In 1535 the city
council sent a delegation to Wittenberg to reconcile with Luther. Soon
after, it appointed the Lutheran Johann Forster to a preaching position
in the city.
Religion and Religious Developments in Augsburg Through the

Sixteenth Century
Augsburg, like most major European cities, had a large number of reli-
gious institutions founded during different epochs in the history of the
church. The fact that Augsburg was also an Episcopal city increased the
number and diversity of its religious foundations. Early medieval
Augsburg, in addition to the cathedral, contained the Benedictine
cloister that came to be known as St. Ulrich and Afra; three collegiate
churches, St. Moritz, St. Peter, and St. Gertrudthe benefices for
which were reserved for cathedral canonsand the secular (that is,
neither collegiate nor residential) canonical foundation of St. Stephan,
reserved for noble women.39 In the twelfth century, a reform move-
ment aimed at improving canonical observance brought to the city two
collegiate churches of Augustinian canons, St. Georg and Heiliges
Kreuz (Holy Cross).
The thirteenth-century dedication to cultivating lay piety brought
the preaching orders and Beguine houses. Both the Dominicans, who
established the friary of St. Magdalena, and the Franciscans, whose
38
For Martin Bucers position on the Eucharist, see chapter one below.
39
On the religious institutions of Augsburg, see Wilhelm Leibhart, Stifte, Klster
und Konvente in Augsburg (hereafter Leibhart, Stifte), in Gottlieb, Geschichte, 194
200; Herbert Immenktter, Die katholiche Kirche in Augsburg in der ersten Hlfte
des 16. Jahrhunderts (hereafter Immenktter, Kirche), in Die Augsburger
Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed. Reinhard Schwarz, Schriften des Vereins
fr Reformationsgeschichte (Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1988), 1011; for another useful
summary of Augsburgs religious institutions, see Wandel, Eucharist, 5155.
friary and church, although dedicated to the Virgin Mary, were known
as Zu den Barfern, arrived in Augsburg in the 1220s.40 The third
preaching order, the Carmelites, founded their friary of St. Anna in the
1270s. Around 1250 five Beguine houses were established in Augsburg,
all of which had been incorporated into male houses by the end of the
thirteenth century. St. Katharina joined the Dominicans. St. Nicholaus
joined the Benedictines. St. Maria Stern, St. Martin, and St. Klara
an der Horbruck attached themselves to the Franciscans. Another
convent, St. Margareth, whose origins are unknown, adopted the
Dominican rule in 1241. Finally, in 1280 it was incorporated into the
Dominican order. The convent of St. Ursula represented a unique case.
Founded as a Beguine house around 1300, after the other houses had
already merged with monastic orders, it took the Dominican rule in
1394 and received spiritual care from the Dominicans, although it
remained subject only to the bishop. Thus, St. Ursula and St. Stephan
were the only cloisters that managed to maintain a degree of independ-
ence into the sixteenth century. In addition, there existed approxi-
mately two dozen chapels and churches without attached benefices.
Immenktter estimates that around 500 clerics or people in orders,
both male and female, dwelled in Augsburg before the Reformation.41
They would have constituted about 1.5% of the population. Six of the
religious institutions operated as parishes: the cathedral, St. Ulrich and
Afra, St. Stephan, St. Moritz, St. Georg, and Hl. Kreuz. St. Ulrich
and Afra and Hl. Kreuz built preaching houses in the second half of the
fifteenth century to accommodate the parish congregations. Other
church institutions that were not, strictly speaking, parishes minis-
tered to the city population nonetheless. The Dominican and Carmelite
churches each provided preachers for the people and presumably
heard confessions. The Franciscan church, Zu den Barfern, as we
shall see below, functioned as a de facto parish, mostly for artisans, but
also for some well-to-do citizens. St. Peter served as the semi-official
church of the city council. The councilors commonly attended mass
there before council meetings. The citys convents, with the exception
of St. Stephan, offered Augsburgs more prosperous citizens the oppor-
tunity to provide their daughters with an honorable, and not uncom-
fortable, vocation. All the citys male ecclesiastical institutions said
40
Barfer, the barefeet, was a common colloquial term used to refer to members
of the Franciscan order because they wore sandals.
41
Immenktter, Kirche, 12.
24 chapter one
masses for the souls of their patrons and occasionally were able to offer
indulgences in exchange for contributions to church construction
funds. Finally, the cathedral and probably St. Moritz operated schools,
which were supplemented by the city Latin school and private
instructors.
In spite of the many essential services that Augsburgs clergy pro-
vided for the citizens, a fair amount of animosity comingled with the
sense of respect that the Augsburg laity would have felt for clerical
office. It was not unusual for the members of the spiritual estate to fail
to live up to the moral standards expected of them. While drinking
and carousing were the most common lapses, sexual sins caused the
most scandal, especially when they involved seducing the women of
Augsburg. The records of Augsburg are dotted with such cases: a prior
dying in a nuns cell, a priest seducing someone who had come for con-
fession, clerics convicted of sodomy, friars living with wives and chil-
dren in their friary. In a widely reported case from 1505, a friar from
St. Anna was found one evening hanging in the slaughterhouse with
his hands and feet bound together like a cow. He refused to say how he
had gotten there, but it was commonly believed that a certain Augsburg
citizen had caught the cleric making advances on his wife and had
taken his revenge. Although not all Augsburgers were equally upset by
the lack of spiritual discipline among some clergy and religious, lapses
in moral rigor did tend to diminish the prestige that the Augsburgers
awarded their alleged spiritual superiors. Especially in the lower eche-
lons of society, many resented the comfortable lifestyles cultivated by
many clerics, especially when they belonged to the mendicant orders.
Finally, it is important to remember it was widely held that a priests
spiritual condition had an impact on the efficacy of his intercessory
prayers and masses. Many believed that priest who was in a state of sin
when he performed the divine office would have been less able to con-
vey spiritual benefit to a benefactor than one living in a state of grace.
Clergy were also entitled to a series of privileges that often rankled
the sensibilities of the laity. They were exempt from many local taxes,
including property taxes, some excise taxes, and occasionally road and
city defense taxes. They were not subject to civil jurisdiction, and it was
often felt that criminal clerics were not adequately punished by eccle-
siastical authorities. Finally, they were not required to participate in
the city watch or military service, although they benefited from these
services. These exemptions contributed to a sense among some
laitythat the clergy were not loyal, contributing members of the civic
commune. Additionally, the bishops frequent attempts to undermine

the autonomy of the commune and his occasional decisions to side
with its enemies generated animosity between the citys chief cleric and
the citizenry.
Creating a particular sense of resentment and alienation was the
refusal of the cathedral chapter to accept citizens of Augsburg or their
sons among its ranks. In the late Middle Ages, the benefices of the
cathedral chapter were reserved for Swabian nobility, although before
that citizens of Augsburg were allowed to become cathedral canons. As
of 1322, however, the cathedral chapter forbade all Augsburg citizens
from obtaining benefices.42 The intent was to stem the growing power
of the citizens vis--vis the bishop and the chapter, and to preserve the
noble status of the chapter by excluding the citizens. The situation
remained stable until 1474, when Pope Sixtus IV promised a canonical
benefice to Marx Fugger, who was the son of a citizen, although not a
citizen himself. The cathedral chapter petitioned Rome to allow it to
change its statute to exclude sons of Augsburg citizens as well. In spite
of attempts of the Augsburg city council to influence the outcome, the
statute was confirmed in July 1475. Another appointment of an
Augsburg citizens son to the chapter in 1482 set off a series of lawsuits
in Rome between the city and the chapter. In spite of the assistance of
the emperor, who sought unsuccessfully to persuade the chapter to
accept at least a few Augsburg citizens among its ranks, the city lost its
case and every appeal. At the end of 1491 the chapters statute was
upheld, and Augsburg was ordered to pay the court costs. The cathe-
dral chapter had been uncompromising in the assertion of its rights,
and the citizens of Augsburg had failed to gain access to the most
exclusive ecclesiastical institution within their walls.
The Reformation was not all about anti-clericalism, but anti-
clerical sentiment did serve as dry tinder, increasing the likelihood
that the Reformation message would encounter receptive hearers. In
considering now the introduction of the Reformation into Augsburg, it
will be important to keep in mind the ambivalence that Augsburgers
felt for their local clergy.
42
On the conflict over Augsburg citizens in the cathedral chapter, see Rolf Kieling,
Brgerliche Gesellschaft und Kirche in Augsburg im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag
zur Strukturanalyse der sptmittelalterlichen Stadt (hereafter Kieling, Gesellschaft),
Abhandlung zur Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg (Augsburg: Verlag Hieronymus
Mhlberger, 1971), 323352.
26 chapter one
In October 1517 it appeared that a new age in the Augsburg church

might be dawning. The newly installed Bishop Christoph von Stadion
held a synod at his residence in Dillingen where he openly lamented
the state of the Augsburg church. Von Stadion, who had studied canon
law in Bologna and had been a canon at the Augsburg cathedral since
1507, was attracted by the spirit of Christian humanism and was a deep
admirer of Erasmus. He called on his priests to make Jesus Christ their
model by rooting out old superstitions and by living a simple Christian
life. We shall never know what von Stadion might have accomplished
had he been given time. As it was, his reform efforts soon would be
swept aside in a tide of religious revolution unleashed by the actions of
an Augustinian friar in Wittenberg later that month.
Martin Luther arrived in Augsburg on October 7, 1518. His name,
though, was already well known in the city. He had been summoned to
appear in Rome on charges of heresy. However, at the urging of the
Saxon Elector Frederick the Wise, the pope empowered Cardinal
Cajetan (Tomasso de Vio), the papal legate to the Diet of Augsburg,
which had ended on September 22, to decide Luthers case. Cajetan
had reached an agreement with Frederick before Luther set off that the
friar would not be arrested. While Luther was in Augsburg he stayed in
the Carmelite friary of St. Anna, whose prior, Johann Frosch, was a
licentiate from the University of Wittenberg. During his stay, Luther
had the opportunity to meet many of Augsburgs luminaries, including
Peutinger, the Benedictine Veit Bild, and the cathedral canon Christoph
Langenmantel. Luthers encounters with Cajetan took place October
1214 at the Fugger home, where the cardinal was staying. Luther had
expected to discuss the charges against him, whereas Cajetan demanded
a recantation. Neither side relented, and Luther, having written Cajetan
and having waited days in suspense for a reply, sneaked out of the city
on the night of October 20.43
Luther had left a positive impression on the citizens who had
encountered him, and the flood of his writings that began to issue from
Augsburg presses expanded his influence in the city significantly. Afew
days after his departure, Frosch left to go to Wittenberg, where he was
granted his doctorate in theology. He returned fully committed to
Luther personally and to his vision of church reform.
43
Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 5052. Roths carefully researched and docu-
mented history of the Reformation in Augsburg has never been superseded.
Von Stadion, pursuing his own version of church reform, in

November 1518 appointed the accomplished humanist Johannes
Oecolampadius cathedral preacher. This scholarly man was immedi-
ately caught up in the maelstrom of religious uncertainty that had been
unleashed on the city. He was accused of siding with the proponents of
the new theology, and also earned the animosity of Johannes Eck, the
citys staunchest supporter of scholastic theology and papal power.
Oecolampadius was able to cultivate relationships within the circle of
Augsburg humanists. Nevertheless, the demands of the position
exhausted him, and in April 1520 he left the city to enter a monastery.
Von Stadion was not to be deterred, however, and in November of that
year he, together with the cathedral chapter, lured to the position
another humanist, the poet laureate Urbanus Rhegius, offering him a
salary of 200 fl. a year. Von Stadion must have hoped that Rhegius
model of church reform would come from Erasmus. Rhegius was care-
fully reading Luthers works, however, and soon came out in favor of
the friars cause. Rome placed heavy pressure on both the chapter and
the bishop to remove Rhegius, but neither displayed any eagerness to
bring about his departure. It was finally Rhegius himself who realized
that his position was untenable. Sometime around the end of 1521 he
left the city. He would return in spring 1523, living as a private citizen
and preaching occasionally at the church of St. Anna.
During 1522 Rome insisted with greater urgency that von Stadion
begin to defend the true faith. Von Stadion had a change of heart, and
by the middle of 1522 he was petitioning the city council without suc-
cess to deliver over to him the two Evangelical preachers in the city,
Johann Frosch at St. Anna and Johann Speiser at St. Moritz. As of 1523
Frosch began to refuse to say Mass unless there were people to attend
it. Frosch was thereby publicly rejecting the view that the Mass was a
good work whose merit could be transferred to the living and the dead.
In this year he was joined by Dr. Stephan Agricola, an Augustinianfriar
who in 1522 had been imprisoned in Rattenberg am Inn for Evangelical
preaching. After being released under unknown circumstances, he
came to live with the Carmelites and often preached at St. Anna. In
1524 Frosch replaced Mary with Christ as the subject of the Salve
Regina, performed a shortened Mass, presumably without the canon,
and gave communion under both kinds to those who desired it.44
44
Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 220223.
28 chapter one
During the years 1523 and 1524, a great deal of popular agitation
took place, the goal of which was to silence the advocates of traditional
religion and advance the Evangelical movement. A number of early
confrontations occurred during the preaching of sermons. In July
1523, a baker-journeyman interrupted a sermon in the Dominican
church, accusing the friar of preaching against the Spirit of God and
of saying things not demonstrated in the Scriptures. In October,
an angry crowd confronted the bishops beadle while he was in
St. Anna listening to one of Froschs sermons in order to report the
contents to the bishop. He was surrounded and called a scoundrel, a
traitor, and a Judas. Further, the congregation hurled insults at the
bishop. Finally, a city soldier had to take the beadle into custody for his
own protection.45
In 1524, attacks began to take place on the symbols and rituals of the
traditional religion. During the night of April 12, many images of the
saints in the cathedral parish cemetery were smeared with cows blood.
In May, an indignant parishioner ripped a sacramentary out of the
hands of a friar at the Franciscan church as he attempted to consecrate
water and salt. A large crowd of onlookers jeered at and insulted the
friar. Finally, in August, the city was thrown into turmoil as a huge
crowd gathered before the city hall to demand the return of the
preacher at the Franciscan church, Hans Schilling, whom the city
council had asked to leave.46
All the preachers who would play a role in the religious events for
the rest of the decade were in place by 1525. At St. Anna, Urbanus
Rhegius had joined Frosch and Agricola in the fall of 1524 as official
city preachers. St. Anna became a bastion of Lutheran preaching in the
city. In the fall of 1524 a new preacher ascended the pulpit of the
Franciscan church. Michael Keller, whose theology bore a relation to
Zwinglis, gained a quick following in the city. The two Augustinian
collegiate churches of Hl. Kreuz and St. Georg had popular Evangelical
preachers, Hans Schmeid and Johann Seyfried, respectively, who were
closely allied with Keller. The congregation of St. Ulrich chose the
Evangelical preacher Hans Schmid as its own.
Three important preachers defended traditional religion in the city.
All three were tied to the Christian humanist movement. The human-
istically inclined Johann Faber preached at the Dominican church.
45
Ibid., 125126.
46
Ibid., 156. The last two incidents will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.
Like von Stadion, he was at first reluctant to condemn Luther but soon
turned fiercely against the Reformation. Rhegius replacement at the
cathedral pulpit was the trilinguist Matthias Kretz.47 Nothing is known
of his early reaction to Luther. However, by 1524 he appears as an
opponent of the Evangelical movement. Finally, Ottmar Nachtigall,
who occupied the pulpit of St. Moritz beginning in June 1525, was an
equally avid disciple of Christian humanism. He was known for a time
as a supporter of Luther, but like his other Augsburg colleagues, he
eventually turned against the reformer and the movement he
unleashed.48 Nachtigall replaced the preacher Johann Speiser, who
had, with Frosch, been one of the first two Evangelical preachers in the
city. After being threatened by Eck and the bishop that he would be
charged with heresy, Speiser returned to the traditional faith in the
summer of 1524. Nevertheless, he left St. Moritz soon afterwards.
The years 15241530 brought momentous changes to the citys reli-
gious life and landscape. Two of the most significant religious conflicts
to embroil the citythe debates over the Lords Supper, and the emer-
gence of Anabaptismwill be discussed extensively in succeeding
chapters. Apart from that, many of the city monasteries and convents
were decimated or doomed by the Reformation. Friars began to leave
the Carmelite friary of St. Anna in 1524, many taking up trades and
marrying. In 1525 only eight friars remained. In 1526 all the remaining
friars abandoned their cowls, and the city took over the administration
of the building. The Franciscan friary was similarly affected by the
Reformation. In 1526 all its members abandoned the friary, with many
choosing to marry. The Dominican cloister managed to stay together,
partially due to the strength of Faber, although it too suffered heavy
losses. By 1532 only four friars remained in the friary. The Benedictine
monastery of St. Ulrich and Afra was the least affected by the reforma-
tion. Although some monks left and attached themselves as Evangelical
preachers to the St. Ulrich parish, most remained true to the tradi-
tional faith. The convents, on average, saw fewer departures due to the
Reformation than the monasteries. The Franciscan convents, St. Klara
an der Horbruck and St. Maria Stern, and the Benedictine convent of
St. Nicholaus, experienced the greatest number of departures. A few
nuns also left the Dominican cloister of St. Katharina. Some women
47
The Christian humanist ideal was to be skilled in the three classical languages
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.
48
Ibid., 129131.
30 chapter one
attempted to continue living a religious life outside the cloister. Others

returned to their families or got married.49
Clerical marriages began to take place in 1525. Urbanus Rhegius
presided over the marriage of Johann Frosch at St. Anna on March 20,
1525. The ceremony was widely attended by friends, supporters, and
curious onlookers. On June 16, 1525, Rhegius himself got married. The
ceremony was almost a civic affair, with many councilors and one of
the mayors in attendance. Michael Keller was married shortly after-
wards on October 18. The citys other Evangelical preachers, Hans
Schneid, Johann Seyfried, and Stephan Agricola, also got married in
this time period.
Ritual life began to change dramatically. The Evangelical preachers
stopped saying the Catholic mass, although what they replaced it with
seems to have varied. Similarly, baptism was now performed in German
without the oil and chrism, although, again, the formula used varied
according to the theological position of the Evangelical preacher.
Auricular confession soon ceased in the Evangelical churches, although
some supporters of Luther continued to recommend it on a voluntary
basis. The equally burdensome Lenten fasting requirements were
widely ignored by 1525. Certain churchwardenslay administrators
of lay-donated ecclesiastical endowmentsbegan to abolish endowed
masses for the dead, the lighting of lamps for the dead, and other
ceremonies. The council diverted the capital that funded these activi-
ties to poor relief. Some families petitioned the city council for the
return of their money, since it was no longer being used for its origi-
nally designated purpose. The council ruled that the money set aside to
fund abolished religious practices would not be returned to the donors
family.50
Finally, this period witnessed the beginnings of an institutionaliza-
tion of the Evangelical religion. The city council decided for the first
time to pay a preacher for his services when it hired Rhegius to preach
at St. Anna in the fall of 1524. Soon after, it put Michael Keller on the
city payroll. The following year Frosch and Agricola had their salaries
paid by the city council. There, generosity reached its limit; all other
Evangelical congregations would have to support their own pastor.
In the case of the Hl. Kreuz preaching house, the Evangelical congrega-
tion, after electing the former canon Hans Schmeid as its pastor,
49
Ibid., 290293.
50
Ibid., 294300.
made up his annual salary of 50 fl. from among the members own
contributions.
At the request of the council, all the Evangelical preachers met once
a week to attempt to ensure unity among themselves.51 The city council
was eager to quell any divisions among them. As we shall see below,
this was an impossible goal. However, the preachers were on occasion
able to achieve agreements on disputed issues. Further, the weekly
meetings provided the clergy with the sense of belonging to a single
civic body of clerics, even if only half of them had their salaries paid by
the city council. Finally, such meetings facilitated collective action
when the city preachers faced a common opponent, whether that was
the Catholic Church or the Anabaptists. After the city council brought
in a new group of preachers in the wake of the 1530 Diet of Augsburg,
it would be able to incorporate the preachers more successfully into
the structure of government.
A Synopsis of the Eucharistic Debates in the Empire up to the

Marburg Colloquy
The year 1524 marked the beginning of the end for the unified
Evangelical movement. Many issues would split the Protestant Church
in the future, but none was more invidious than the conflict over the
mode of Christs presence in the Lords Supper. This debate over
whether Jesus was present in an extraordinary fashion in the elements
of the Eucharist, and, if so, what the nature of that presence was, quickly
brought an end to a loosely knit Evangelical cohesion. Scholarship to
this point has largely concerned itself with the positions of the trained
theologians who participated in the debate and the strategies they
employed to advance their views among intellectual and political lead-
ers of the day. Scholars have traditionally presented the debate as tak-
ing place among three camps, one centered on Huldreich Zwingli in
Zurich, another on Martin Bucer in Strasbourg, and another on Martin
Luther in Wittenberg. Further, four fundamental questions have
guided the scholarly discussion: What did Luther and Zwingli believe
about the Real Presence, and when did they believe it? Was it a debate
over mere words, or did unbridgeable differences exist between the
two reformers? Who was at fault for the outbreak of the dispute? And
51
Ibid., 296, 309310.
32 chapter one
was Strasbourg genuinely attempting to mediate between Zurich and

Wittenberg, or was it merely the more moderate face of a single party
opposed to Wittenbergs Eucharistic theology? The two scholars who
most forcefully represent the different approaches to this question are
Walther Khler and Thomas Kaufmann. Khlers Zwingli und Luther
downplays the differences between Luther and Zwingli and holds up
Bucer as a well-intentioned mediator between the two camps.52 More
recently, Kaufmann has argued in a narrower study, Die Abendmahl-
stheologie der Straburger Reformatoren bis 1528, that the differences
between Zwinglis and Luthers theology were insurmountable and
thatbefore 1528 Bucer was little more than a crafty agent in the service
of a party intent on overcoming Luthers Real Presence theology.53
52
Khler, Zwingli. The central thesis of this book is that the split within the
Protestant camp over the Eucharist did not have to happen. To this end, Khler dedi-
cates the first chapter of his book to demonstrating that Zwingli had not always main-
tained a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. His view only changed due to a
series of contingent historical events. Thus, he could have been brought back to a mid-
dle position by some well-placed mediators. Strasbourg and, to an extent, Basel played
this role. To prove that they were mediators seeking to bring all parties to common
ground, Khler must demonstrate that Strasbourg/Basel held a position on the
Eucharist distinct from both Zurich and Wittenberg. Further, he must dispel the
notion that Bucer and his colleagues used whatever means at their disposal, honest or
otherwise, to win as many Evangelicals as possible for a symbolic understanding of the
Eucharist. Only the inability of the participants in the conflict to engage in true dia-
logue prevented unity from being achieved. They talked past each other, failed to
understand each others arguments, and allowed personal attacks from (mostly
Lutheran) firebrands to poison the waters. Khlers thesis founders on the stubborn
fact that unity was not shipwrecked by misunderstanding. Rather, it was only conceiv-
able while misunderstanding prevailed. Khler admits but never fully comes to terms
with Luthers and Zwinglis intractability and conviction on this theological issue.
While he does demonstrate that Zwingli accepted a spiritual presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, there is no indication that Zwingli ever maintained a belief in the corporeal
presence after perhaps 1522. Zwingli would never have admitted such a presence, and
Luther would never have denied it. The contemporary hope for unity was based on a
misunderstanding of Luthers pre-1523 writings and an incorrect assumption that
Zwingli could be brought back to his pre-Hoen understanding of the Lords Supper.
53
Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie. The essence of Kaufmanns argument lies in his
attempts to demonstrate that the Strasbourgers were presenting themselves as media-
tors in the dispute between Luther and Zwingli while simultaneously attempting (usu-
ally surreptitiously) to undermine the acceptance of a Lutheran understanding of the
Eucharist. For example, in a letter-writing campaign directed by Bucer in November
1524, the Strasbourg reformers wrote to various Swiss and South-German preachers,
and to Luther. In the letters they slyly spread the teaching of Karlstadt by presenting
some of his views that Bucer has already adopted and asking for the preachers re-
sponse to them. The letter to Luther gives no indication that he had already broken
with the Wittenberg reformer (Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 217235). Later,
during the period of time when the Strasbourg reformers sent Georg Caselius to
Although numerous preachers and theologians played a significant

role in the development of the Eucharistic debates, a fact to which
Khlers 840-page first volume clearly attests, for the sake of brevity,
Ishall limit this summary primarily to Luther and Zwingli, with refer-
ence also to Strasbourg.
Zwinglis earliest expression of his position on the Real Presence
occurs in his first Reformation writing, Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der
Speisen (April 16, 1522).54 In it he declares that one is free to eat meat
and work on feast days after one has heard Gods word and eaten
God. Further, he remarks that Sunday must be observed until one has
heard Gods word and eaten the heavenly bread.55 Although in 1525 he
would famously declare that he had quietly held a symbolic under-
standing of the Eucharist for a longer time than was fitting to reveal,
the offhand comment about eating God casts doubt on that claim.
Zwingli takes the next step towards a symbolic understanding
of the Eucharist in his letter to his friend and former teacher
Thomas Wyttenbach (July 15, 1523).56 For the first time, he denies
Wittenberg to mediate the Eucharistic dispute (October 10, 1525), Bucer himself
was altering the sense of Bugenhagens Commentary on the Psalms, which he was
translating, to make it appear as though Bugenhagen agreed with him on the Eucharist.
Around the same time, he sent another series of letters to South-German pastors to
dissuade them from siding with Luther on the Eucharist (Kaufmann, Abendmahl-
stheologie, 303332). Only in light of the Bern disputation, in which Bucer realized
that the Evangelical disunity on the matter of the Eucharist damaged their credibility
vis--vis the Catholics, did he begin to formulate a position that might actually be
acceptable to Luther (Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 395401). I would argue that
indeed, between Grund und Ursach (Jan./Feb. 1525) and Bucers Vergleichung D.
Luthers und seins gegentheyls vom Abentmal Christi (June/July 1528) it is difficult to see
the Strasbourgers as genuine mediators. Theirs and Oecolampadius understanding of
the Eucharist, which affirmed that the faithful eat the spiritual body of Christ, or eat
the body of Christ spiritually, receiving grace and strengthening of faith thereby, con-
cedes more than Zwingli. However, if they were a genuine third party, it seems unusual
that the only of the two other parties that they ever undertook to refute was the
Lutheran one. It would be better to characterize Strasbourg during this period as the
mediating wing of the non-corporeal presence party. While Strasbourg, over against
Zurich, admitted an extraordinary spiritual presence, most important to them was
that the understanding of a corporeal presence be refuted. Strasbourgs intention was
to win as many Evangelicals as possible to the non-corporeal presence camp, which
included symbolists and spiritual-presentists. Their attempts to expound a mediating
theology during this period were not a true attempt to bring the parties together.
Rather, they hoped to make their non-corporeal presence party as attractive as possi-
ble to fence-sitters, including (so they even dared to dream), Luther himself.
54
Huldreich Zwinglis smtliche Werke 14 vols., (hereafter ZW), ed. Emil Egli et al.,
Corpus Reformatorum (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag), [19051956] 1982), 1:
74136.
55
Khler, Zwingli, 16.
56
ZW 8 (Br. 2) no. 305, pp. 8489.
34 chapter one
transubstantiation. He argues that Christ is only present in heaven and

in the hearts of believers and that in the Eucharist the power of the
body and blood of Christ is offered under the bread and wine. He states
that the body and blood are present in the eating, but only to the faith-
ful. This concession of a spiritual presence is designed for the weak in
faith who need to be strengthened by external signs.57 In this treatise,
Zwingli is intent on emphasizing the efficacy of the communicants
faith over against the priests act of consecration, and the uselessness of
physical aids in the mature spiritual life. During this stage Zwingli is
willing to admit that Christ is present in his power during the
Eucharistic ceremony, but not in a corporeal way. Moreover, he would
certainly not be objectively contained in the elements.
Luther had since at least 1520 sought to turn his audiences attention
away from the elements of the Eucharist and towards the promise con-
tained in the words of institution, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
Luther outlines this view, with slight variations, in A Treatise on the
New Testament, that is, the Holy Mass (July 1520), The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church (October 1520), and The Misuse of the Mass
(November 1520).58 For Luther, a sacrament is an external sign that
contains and signifies something spiritual. The body and blood of
Christ, contained in the bread and wine, act as a pledge that strength-
ens the communicants faith in the truth of Gods forgiveness. The
signs, or pledge, act to point the communicant to the promise, or the
testament, contained in the words of institution. Forgiveness of sins
comes not through the eating of the signs, but through accepting in
faith the promise of forgiveness declared in the Word.59
In 1521 a Dutch rector, Hinne Rode, arrived in Wittenberg with an
explosive letter. It was written by the Dutch humanist Cornielisz Hoen
(d. 1524) sometime after 1509. Inspired by a treatise of Wessel Gansfort,
it argued for a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. The crux of
Hoens argument was that the is in this is my body should be translated
57
Ibid., 2028.
58
D, Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 68 vols. (hereafter WA)
(Weimar: Hermann Bhlaus Nachfolger, 18831999), 6: 353378; 497573; 8:
477563.
59
Ralph W. Quere, Changes and Constants: Structure in Luthers Understanding
of the Real Presence in the 1520s (hereafter Quere, Changes), The Sixteenth
Century Journal 16, 1 (1985): 4853; Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to
Reformation 14831521, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, [1981]
1985), 358365.
as signifies. Hoen had given his letter to Rode, suggesting that he show
it to Luther and inform him of Wessels writings. Luther was glad to
hear about Wessel, but was not favorably inclined towards Hoens let-
ter. Rode remained in Germany and Switzerland for the next few years,
meeting with, among others, Zwingli in the summer of 1524 and the
Strasbourg reformers in mid-November of the same year.60
In January 1523 Luther published The Adoration of the Sacrament.61
In his previous treatises Luther had de-emphasized the body and blood
present in and with the elements in favor of a focus on the words of
promise. Now he had occasion to make clear his belief in the corporeal
presence of Christ in the bread and wine. He had become aware of
what he viewed as the heresy being propagated by Rode and wanted to
take a clear stand against it. In addition, he was directing this treatise
to a delegation of Bohemian Brethren in Wittenberg who wanted to
know whether it was proper to worship the consecrated elements. They
were opposed to the idea. Because Luther was slightly unsure whether
the Brethren affirmed the Real Presence at all, he wanted to clearly
reject a symbolic reading of the words of institution. The promises of
God must be clear and unambiguousThis is my body must mean
exactly what it says. Otherwise the Scripture becomes uncertain and
troubled consciences are left adrift. Luther concludes that the adora-
tion of the Sacrament is unnecessary but permitted. The Word still
holds the primary position in Luthers Eucharistic theology. It brings
with it everything it promises, namely, Christs body and blood, and
the forgiveness of sins.62 The body and blood receive an increased sig-
nificance in this treatise, as they become a benefit themselves and not
purely a sign. Eating the physical body of Christ effects the incorpora-
tion into his spiritual body. Forgiveness of sins still comes through
theWord.
When Zwingli wrote a letter to Reutlingen pastor Matthus Alber
on November 16, 1524, he had fully adopted a symbolic understanding
of the Eucharist.63 Khler identifies four factors that influenced Zwingli
to advance this position. Luthers publication of The Adoration of the
60
For an introduction to and a translation of this letter, see Heiko A. Oberman,
Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, [1966] 1981), 252253; 268278.
61
WA 11: 417456.
62
Quere, Changes, 5557.
63
ZW 3: 322354.
36 chapter one
Sacrament convinced him that he and Luther were of very different

minds on the matter, and caused him to begin to identify Luther with
his Catholic opponents. Luthers former Wittenberg colleague Andreas
Karlstadt began in October 1524 to publish a series of treatises reject-
ing the Real Presence. Some of Karlstadts treatises were incendiary
and exegetically questionable. Zwingli had to move quickly to stake
out his own position on the matter before he became simply identified
with Karlstadt. Around this period of time Zwingli and Erasmus broke
off their relationship. His estrangement from the great humanist made
it easier for him to reject Erasmus strategy of caution in interpreting
the Eucharist. Finally, his conversation with Rode in the summer of
1524 crystallized his thinking. The concept that the words of institu-
tion should be translated as this [bread] signifies my body became
the linchpin of Zwinglis Eucharistic thought.64
In this letter, Zwingli advanced his new Eucharistic theology, in
which he claimed that to eat the body of Christ now signifies to believe
that he died for ones sins. He began to employ Jesus discourse from
John 6, and especially John 6:63, It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh
is of no avail, to argue that material things cannot convey spiritual
grace. In contrast to his letter to Wyttenbach, he made no concessions
to the weak. He now maintains that there is no grace given in the sacra-
ment, no forgiveness of sins or strengthening of faith. Rather, taking
communion functions as an oath of allegiance to Christ. Further, the
ceremony is a communal confession of loyalty to him, which binds the
congregation together. If we are interested in determining who threw
the first punch in this theological brawl, the responsibility lies with
Zwingli. Although he does not mention Luther by name, he speaks of
well-known theologians who have become more dull than the Jews
arguing with Jesus in John 6 and mocks the theologians who scoff at
transubstantiation but themselves stress an essential and corporeal
eating. The target of such remarks would have been clear to all.65
For Zwingli, a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist was an unde-
flectable weapon against the Catholic Massthe principal object of
his assaults. It completely undermined the sacramental character of
the event and the power of the priest to mediate grace to a people with-
out faith.
64
Khler, Zwingli, 61.
65
Khler, Zwingli, 7379.
In his comprehensive treatise from March 1525, De vera et falsa reli-

gione Commentarius, Zwingli offered a stark exposition of his
Eucharistic theology.66 For Zwingli, God is free and can never be bound
to a sign or a material object. Further, flesh and spirit, body and faith
have nothing to do with each other. Sensory objects, therefore, cannot
influence the spiritual realm of the soul and of faith. Faith does not
need any exterior confirmation. Therefore, receiving the Eucharist
does not strengthen or increase personal faith. A sacrament, rather, is
a solemn oath that a soldier offers to his leader. In the Eucharist, one
pledges oneself to be a soldier of Christ, and the community declares
itself to be one body and of one faith.67
On August 17, 1525, Zwingli published his Subsidium sive coronis de
Eucharistia, which served as a defense of his position on the Eucharist
against local Catholic opposition.68 Zwingli essentially insists against
his opponents that he is trying to maintain a degree of rationality and
common sense in the Christian religion. While it might be possible for
God to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood that look like bread
and wine, such an act would make God arbitrary in the use of his
power. It would be unreasonable for God to ask people to believe in
miracles that their senses deny. Zwingli turns towards his Lutheran
opponents when he argues that God does not simply violate the laws
that govern physical objects. It is impossible that two substances could
exist within one substance. Therefore, consubstantiation must be false.
Faith is not to be exercised in accepting such foolish things. Rather,
faith is a living trust in God.69
Luther had also become aware of Karlstadts publication offensive on
the Eucharist and other matters. To counter Karlstadt, Luther pub-
lished a refutation, Against the Heavenly Prophets, in two segments,
one at the end of December 1524 and the other at the beginning of
January 1525.70 Luther argues that Karlstadt and his supporters have
rejected Gods appointed instruments of grace and revelation, namely,
the Word and the sacraments. Such an approach leads to fanaticism,
legalism, and works-righteousness. The inward acts of the Spirit are
always related to the outward acts appointed by God. The text of the
66
ZW 3: 590912.
67
Ibid., 8082.
68
ZW 4: 440504.
69
Ibid., 109114.
70
WA 18: 37214.
38 chapter one
Scripture should not be judged according to human reason. No matter

how difficult it is to accept a doctrine, one must never exalt reason over
the clear Word of God.71 In the Eucharist, the forgiveness of sins is now
found in the elements. The words of promise give forgiveness in the
body and blood of Christ. The Word still effects the presence of Christ
and gives the benefits, but the signifierChrists body and bloodand
the signifiedthe forgiveness of sinsare about to collapse into each
other.72
The Strasbourgers also sought to come to terms with Karlstadts rev-
olutionary program. The first attempt was the treatise Was man halten
und antwurten soll von der spaltung zwischen Martin Luther und Andres
Carolstadt, published between October 24 and 31, 1524, and written by
the Strasbourg preacher Wolfgang Capito. For Capito, the Eucharist
was essentially a meal signifying the unity of the Christian community.
Therefore, it was critical that a dispute over the Eucharist not destroy
the unity of the church. The solution to the burgeoning division was to
allow each person to have his own opinion about what precisely was
present in the elements. Such a position is possible because being a
Christian pertains to the interior realm of the spirit. No external thing
can be of fundamental significance for the Christian life.73 Capito was
probably unaware, however, that he was begging the question. His pre-
sumption about the nature of the Christian life, which formed the basis
of his proposed solution, was precisely the principal point of debate in
the Eucharistic conflict. The question of whether or not God works
through externals or directly upon the soul was at the heart of the the-
ological dispute. Luther would not accept Capitos presumption, and
therefore could never agree to his solution. Since, for Luther, Gods
forgiveness flowed through Word and Sacrament, to deny Christs
presence and forgiveness in externals like the bread and wine was to
cut oneself off from Gods grace, a matter of no small consequence.
Sometime between January 9 and February 6, 1525, Martin Bucer,
in the name of the Strasbourg preachers, published Grund und
Ursach auss gotlicher schrifft, an official statement on changes made
to Eucharistic and other practices by the Strasbourg Reformation.74
71
Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 15211532
(hereafter Brecht, Reformation), trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press
[1986], 1990), 166169.
72
73
Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 215216.
74
Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften (hereafter BDS), ed. Robert Stupperich
(Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960), 1: 185278.
Bucer employs the same spiritualizing hermeneutic that Capito had

advanced. Like Zwingli and Karlstadt, Bucer depends on John 6:63 to
emphasize the need to turn away from corporeal and external things
and cultivate a love for spiritual things. The devil attempts to draw the
church into disputes over external matters instead of concentrating on
essentials, like eating and drinking in faith, abstaining from sin, and
living a new spiritual life. Christ is not present everywhere according
to his human nature. Therefore, he is not bodily present in the ele-
ments, nor is there any reason for him to be. The Strasbourgers spir-
itualizing theology also extends to Christs human nature. Christ left
earth because his human nature is of no use to his people. He is only
helpful in his divine nature.
Bucer states that those who take the elements in faith receive sacra-
mentally the body and blood of Christ. Not that the body and blood
are contained in the elements. The bread and wine are signs that refer
to, and do not contain, spiritual things. They are a figure of the body
and blood of Christ as he hung on the cross. The purpose of that figure
is to provoke the memory of Christs death. In partaking of the ele-
ments the Christian community constitutes itself through a common
confession and remembrance of the death of Christ. Its members are
thereby strengthened in their love for each other as they remember
that they are one loaf and one body in Christ. While the possibility that
individual Christians might receive spiritual benefit from the Supper is
not absolutely excluded, neither is it discussed.75
Zwinglis and Bucers close associate, Johannes Oecolampadius, now
in Basel, published in September 1525 De genuina verborum domini:
hoc est corpus meum iuxta vetustissimos authores expositione liber.
Oecolampadius, drawing extensively on the church fathers, rejects a
corporeal eating of the physical body and blood of Christ, since corpo-
real things cannot affect the soul. However, his theology is more indi-
vidualistic and mystical than that of either Zwingli or Bucer. He
declares that the Eucharistic bread is mystical bread, not ordinary
bread. And while Christ is not in the bread, he warns, makes zealous,
comforts, and strengthens the faithful through the Word.76
Between October 1526 and March 1528, Luther published three
major defenses of his Eucharistic theology. The first to appear was
TheSacrament of the Body of ChristAgainst the Fanatics.77 The book
75
Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 242252.
76
77
WA 19: 471523.
40 chapter one
actually consisted of three sermons preached by Luther in Wittenberg

at Easter time, 1526. There is no indication that Luther either oversaw
their publication or was displeased that they were published. They
were intended to counter the assertion made by some supporters of
Zwingli that Luther, when properly understood, had the same view as
Zwingli on the Eucharist. Luther admits that the opponents of the Real
Presence have forced him to emphasize the objective foundation of the
sacrament. He argues that Christ is omnipresent, not only according to
his divinity, but also according to his humanity. However, in the
Eucharist he is readily accessible and binds his body to the bread and
the wine.78
In April 1527, Luther published his treatise That These Words of
Christ, This is My Body, etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics.79 He
reiterates his criticism of all the fanaticswho include Zwingli,
Oecolampadius, Karlstadt, and those possessed by the spirit of Thomas
Mntzerthat they place their reason above the clear word of God,
and that in their spiritualism they reject the means of Gods grace and
want nothing to do with Christs incarnation. He attempts to clarify his
position on the omnipotence of Christs humanity, arguing that while
Christ is present everywhere according to his humanity, he only makes
himself available for the believer in the Supper. The signs no longer
point to anything outside themselves. Instead, the body and blood are
the benefit and the gift of the Eucharist, for forgiveness is contained in
them. The Word does not bring the gift, since Christ is omnipresent.
Rather, it makes Christ known in the elements and offers him to the
communicant.80
This understanding of Sacrament is also reflected in his last work
before the Margburg Colloquy, Confession Concerning the Lords
Supper, from February/March 1528.81 He explains his position in terms
of a sacramental union (unio sacramentalis). Because sign and signi-
fied are conflated in the Eucharist, there is no way to separate out the
bread, from the body of Christ, from forgiveness. They are all together
and available for the communicant.82 In this treatise, Luther also seeks
to underscore the objective, corporeal presence of Christ. Christ is
78
Khler, Zwingli, 384388; Quere, Changes, 6566.
79
WA 23: 38320.
80
81
WA 26: 240509.
82
indeed chewed with the teeth, and not just by the faithful, but also by
unbelievers. Faith does not make Christ present. Rather, his availabil-
ity depends only upon Gods power and is totally independent of
human action. Luther was aware of the attempts that were being made
to bring about a reconciliation between himself and Zwingli, whom he
refers to in this treatise as being from the devil. He wants to make his
position on the Eucharist clear to opponents and mediators alike and
to warn them of the price that will have to be paid if they want
concord.
Bucer attempted to use the concept of a sacramental union to fash-
ion a compromise in his Vergleichung D. Luthers und seins gegentheyls
vom Abentmal Christi. Dialogus (June/July 1528).83 It allowed him to
affirm a connection between eating the elements and partaking of the
body and blood of Christ. However, it left the precise nature of that
connection vague, and did not require a corporeal presence of Christ
in the elements. Luther would block this compromise by insisting on
the fact that the godless also ate the body of Christ. Precisely this issue
would plague negotiations down to the Wittenberg Concord in 1536.
In the intervening years, Zwingli had shifted between approxima-
tions to Luther, as in the Amica Exegesis of February 1527, and defiant
statements of conviction, like Dass diese Worteden alten sinn haben
of June 1527.84 Finally, pressured by Bucer and hopeful for an alliance
with the Evangelical princes, he, together with Oecolampadius, wrote
ber Luthers Buch Bekenntnis genannt, which was published in August
1528. Zwingli does not retreat from any of his foundational assertions.
Forgiveness of sins does not come through eating the Sacrament. All
spiritual benefitspeace, confidence, strengthening, etc.are brought
directly into the heart by the Spirit. Faith cannot be directed towards
created things, nor may spiritual benefit be derived from them.
However, Zwingli is willing to make two steps towards Luther. He
maintains that while Christ is not present in the bread, people do bring
him into the Supper in their thankful hearts. Therefore, he is present in
faith and in the faithful. Further, he concedes that Christ is present in
his humanity in the hearts of believers, but not in his corporeality.
Zwingli achieves this by positing the divisibility of Christs human
body from his humanity. While the human body can only be in one
83
BDS 2: 295383.
84
ZW 5: 548758; 795977.
42 chapter one
place, namely, at the right hand of God in heaven, his human nature
can move freely. Oecolampadius continues to maintain that the words
of institution transform the elements into a sacrament and the bread
into the Bread of the Lord. Although Oecolampadius ultimately does
not maintain that an objective gift is offered in the Eucharist, his heav-
ily sacramental language leaves precisely that impression.
The parties were still far apart on many issues, but the Evangelical
leaders, especially Philipp of Hesse, were hoping to form a more
broadly based Evangelical alliance with the Swiss Confederation, and a
resolution of religious differences was a precondition for this. The
April recess of the 1529 Diet of Speyer only increased the sense of
urgency. Zwingli and his Swiss compatriots were equally concerned
about the growth of Hapsburg power and about relations with the
Catholic cantons in the Swiss Confederation. Theologians interested in
a reconciliation also believed that enough progress had been made to
justify a meeting of the major parties. The Marburg Colloquy, hosted
by Philipp of Hesse, took place in October 1529, and was attended by
the most important Evangelical religious leaders from Germany and
Switzerland. Ultimately, Zwingli and Luther could not agree on a com-
promise. Each group went its own way. Zwinglis path led him to rely
on his regional political alliances, and ultimately to the disastrous
Second Battle of Kappel in 1531. Bucer and his allies had persuaded
the Lutherans to pursue reconciliation, and they were not going to let
the failure of Marburg destroy their momentum. The defeat of the
Swiss at Kappel and the emperors increased determination to halt reli-
gious innovations in the empire caused many cities in South Germany
who had earlier looked south to Switzerland to realize that their future
security lay with the Lutheran princes to the north. Bucer had coaxed
Luther onto a track that sometimes against his better judgment would
lead him to the Wittenberg Concord.
CHAPTER TWO
THE SCHILLING AFFAIR: POPULISM, REVOLT, AND THE

EUCHARIST
Throughout the 1520s Augsburgs Franciscan church, Zu den

Barfern, repeatedly functioned as an environment in which clergy
and laity articulated their religious, social, and political visions in the
language of Eucharistic theology. This congregation became the focal
point and the lightning rod in the Protestant-era Eucharistic conflicts
that erupted in 1524. The remaining chapters are dedicated to the vari-
ous social and religious forces and movements swirling around the
Franciscan church in this period and to the occasions on which people
took a stance in the Eucharistic debates as a way of defining and sup-
porting their positions on broader and interconnected issues.
Church and City: The Development of Zu den Barfern in Augsburg
The Franciscan order arrived in Augsburg between 1221 and 1225,

almost immediately after its founding. From Sibito (Siboto), bishop of
Augsburg (12271247), it received a plot of land outside the city walls
on which to build a cloister. In 1265 the cloister and a simple
Romanesque church were completed.1 During this period the neigh-
borhood, the Jakobervorstadt, grew up around the Franciscan church.
Being outside the city walls, the Jakobervorstadt was inhabited primar-
ily by the less prosperous members of society. Small-time artisans, day
workers, and the poor would continue to populate the Jakobervorstadt
into the sixteenth century.
However, Horst Jesse concludes that the church was not so much
an institution that catered exclusively to the poor, as one in which
richand poor could mix in a comparatively egalitarian environment.2
1
For information on the Franciscan church in Augsburg, see Horst Jesse, Die evan-
gelische Kirche Zu den Barfern in Augsburg (hereafter Jesse, Barfern)
(Pfaffenhofen: W. Ludwig Verlag, 1982), 1830, and idem, Die Geschichte der
Evangelischen Kirche in Augsburg (hereafter Jesse, Geschichte) (Pfaffenhofen:
W. Ludwig Verlag, 1983), 3944.
2
Jesse, Geschichte, 4041.
44 chapter two
There is substantial evidence to show that wealthy citizens of Augsburg

heavily patronized the Franciscan church. Leading Augsburg families
richly endowed the church with money and property. Wealthy
Augsburgers chose to have the anniversary masses for themselves and
their relatives said in the Franciscan church. They were buried in the
church cemetery and, in at least one case from 1407, erected a family
chapel within the church. In 1356 the patrician Ulrich Ilsung patron-
ized the churchs reconstruction as a Gothic hall church. There is clear
indication that the ruling elite of Augsburg continued to attend the
Franciscan church well into the Reformation era. Michael Keller,
preacher there beginning in 1524, remarked in a letter to the city coun-
cil from 1527 that many of the councilors regularly attended his
sermons.3
Despite the support and patronage for the church from the citys
richer elements, the traditional orientation of the Franciscan church
towards the poor was never expunged in the increasingly affluent
Augsburg congregation. According to Jesse, no distinctions of rank
were made either within the church or in burial positions in the church
cemetery. Kieling argues that beginning in the mid-fourteenth cen-
tury, Augsburg citizens began to redirect their donations from the
cathedral and the collegiate foundation church of St. Moritz to the
churches of the mendicant orders. This development resulted both
from growing antagonism between the cathedral with its chapter and
the city as well as from an increasing participation of non-patrician
classes in urban life. While many patricians, whose wealth was genera-
tions old, remained attached to St. Moritz, the Dominicans and the
Carmelites attracted Augsburg citizens who had more recently grown
wealthy in trade and financial activities. The Dominicans were appar-
ently known as the rich beggars (Reichen Betler), a term suggesting
a certain disdain among the population due to the benefits that accrued
to them through their relationship with the citys wealthier elements.4
The Franciscans drew donations from citizens of little or moderate
wealth.5 Yet even here the number of donors from the wealthier
3
Es sein auch vil aus e.w., die meiner predig wenig versaumpt haben (Friedrich
Roth, Zur Lebensgeschichte des Meisters Michale Keller, Prdikanten in Augsburg,
Beitrage zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 5 [1899], 163).
4
Beschreibung der Aufruer so sich Allhie Im Augspurg wegen eines Mnchs als mann
Nach Christi geburt zelete 1524 Jar den anderen tag Augusti Erhoben (hereafter
Beschreibung), 17r (StAA EWA, 480).
5
Kieling, Gesellschaft, 285286.
the schilling affair: populism, revolt, and the eucharist 45
segments of society (with a net worth of over 500 fl.) outnumbered the
donors of moderate or little wealth almost two to one.6 Nevertheless,
for a moderate sum, average Augsburgers took advantage of the oppor-
tunity to benefit from the meritorious piety of the order of St. Francis.
Finally, the fact that the Franciscan church functioned as a de facto
parish church for the lower-status residents of the Jakobervorstadt
ensured that the church would continue to draw from the popular ele-
ments of the city. In 1524, when the city council removed the Franciscan
churchs preacher, Johann Schilling, it received a petition to allow his
return to preach in the Vorstadt for the sake of the poor people, so that
the pulpit there might not remain vacant.7
In 1398 a fire swept through the neighborhood of the Franciscan
friary and church. The cloister burned down, and the church also may
have been affected. The city took the opportunity to rebuild the church,
and between 1407 and 1411 a new, elegant, Gothic hall edifice was con-
structed with a capacity to hold over 2,000 worshipers.8 The construc-
tion of the new, spacious church reflected its centrality in the lives of
Augsburgs residents. Jesse describes it as the focal point of Augsburgs
religious life.9 Augsburg was an Episcopal city, and all six parish
churches in Augsburg were directly under the bishops control.
However, since the preaching orders were subject directly to the pope,
the bishop of Augsburg had very little influence over the affairs of the
Franciscan church. Although it was not officially a parish church, it
was able to maintain a congregation outside the control of the bishop.10
The relationship between the city and the bishop was often tense, and
the city rulers were eager to nurture a church that was at least exempt
from the jurisdiction of the bishop and ideally susceptible to being
brought under their control. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
the office of Zechpfleger (churchwarden) emerged in Augsburg. These
lay officials, who often held a seat concomitantly on the city council,
had oversight of cloisters and monasteries use of resources donated by
6
Ibid., 263264.
7
[It was requested that] das der predigstuel, zue den Barfueeren nicht allso leer
vnd blos gelassen, sondern das gemeltem Mnch derselbige predigstuel das Gottes
wort darauff zue predigen, vmb des armen volkhs willen, in der vorstatt wohnhafft
widerumb vergunnet werden solte (Beschreibung, 11v).
8
The church was bombed in World War II, and today only the choir remains. For
a ground plan of the fifteenth-century church, see Jesse, Geschichte, 16.
9
Jesse, Barfern, 19.
10
46 chapter two
lay patrons. They also maintained the church, were responsible for the
parish altar, and kept up the parish graves.11 Through these officials,
churches like the one run by the Franciscans were subject to an exten-
sive system of lay control and oversight.
In the fifteenth century the Franciscan church functioned as a sort
of civic counterpart to the cathedral. The cathedral represented the
sacred city ruled by the bishop and supported by the patrician elite.
Over against this, the Franciscan church represented the autonomous
commune with its own claims to spiritual legitimacy and authority. It
had become the quasi-official city church, where all members of
the civic commune felt represented and welcome and where impor-
tant socio/religious functions were held. In 1468 the funeral rites
for Empress Eleanore of Portugal were held at the Franciscan
church,while masses were said by the other orders. When Emperor
Friedrich III died in 1493, the public mourning of his passing was cel-
ebrated in the Franciscan church. An enormous memorial tomb with
800 burning candles was constructed there for the occasion. In 1508,
services were held there for Duke Albrecht IV of Bavaria. Finally, when
Emperor Maximilian died in 1519, the church was once again orna-
mented to honor the deceased Emperor. By the sixteenth century, the
Franciscan church supported a parish congregation that serviced its
poorer neighboring residents without alienating its richer patrons and
congregants. Moreover, partially because of its inclusive character, it
was chosen to represent the entire civic commune at moments of polit-
ical and cultural significance for the city.12
The city took great care to ensure that high-quality preachers occu-
pied the pulpit of the Franciscan church and that the friars set a good
example for the citizenry. In 1414 the city wrote to the provincial, com-
plaining that the Franciscan church lacked a good preacher. The
churchwardens were especially concerned because the lack of a popu-
lar preacher was causing donations to plummet and was placing the
church in a precarious financial position. In 1419, 1438, and 1443 the
council undertook further attempts either to obtain good preachers or
to ensure that the city would be able to retain popular preachers.13
11
Ibid., 3132; Kieling, Gesellschaft, 102107.
12
On these events, see Jesse, Barfern, 23; idem, Geschichte, 43; Kieling,
Gesellschaft, 158.
13
Preaching was central to the mission of the Franciscans, and increas-

ingly so over the course of the fifteenth century. Fiery preaching against
immorality, feuding, greed, and luxury was a specialty of itinerant
Franciscan preachers. Indeed, some of the most popular and effective
preachers of the fifteenth centuryJames of the March, Bernardino of
Sienna, and John of Capistranowere also the most prominent mem-
bers of the Observant Franciscan movement. Bernardino, reflecting
the esteem in which some in his order held preaching, remarked, If of
these two things you can do only oneeither hear the Mass or hear the
Sermonyou should let the Mass go rather than the SermonThere
is less peril for your soul in not hearing Mass than in not hearing the
Sermon.14 South Germany also produced important Franciscan
preachers, including the Strasbourg preacher John Grisch, who was
active between 1430 and 1440, and in the early sixteenth century
Thomas Murner, better known as a Catholic controversialist.15
There is also evidence that the behavior of the brothers did not
always conform to the standards of the order or of the community. In
1433 the council wrote to the provincial that the citizens of Augsburg
were scandalized because the friars were bringing their own wives
and children in and out of the friary in broad daylight.16 The visit of
Johann Geiler von Kaisersberg in 1488 occasioned an attempt to
reform the friary. In a handwritten account of the events surrounding
disturbances caused by the Franciscan preacher Johann Schilling, the
anonymous author introduces the subject with an account of Geilers
interactions with the friary. He writes that Geiler had come to the city
50 years earlierthis dates the writing at around the year 1538and
had preached in Augsburg for an entire year (actually four months).
Some goodhearted men had petitioned Geiler to conduct a visitation
of the friary and reform the friars wicked behavior a bit. When the
friars became aware of his plan, they secretly wrote to Pope Sixtus IV,
who was a fellow Franciscan, and received from him a bull that blocked
Geilers reformation attempts. When he was presented with the bull,
the author reports Geiler as having said, Either this pope is
of the devil, or everything that I have preached in my life is a lie.
14
Quoted in John Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order from its Origins to
the year 1517 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 459.
15
Ibid., 525.
16
Ibid.
48 chapter two
Then he took leave of the friars.17 Even if not every element of this
account is true, it confirms the general picture of a friary that had
backed away from strict adherence to its rule, and a citizenry eager to
have the friary fulfill its important moral and religious duties in the
city. There is no indication, however, that questionable behavior of
some friars diminished the role of the Franciscan church in the civic
landscape.
In 1522, as a harbinger of coming problems, the Franciscan church
preacher Blasius Kern began to threaten the peace of the city with his
sermons. The city council, worried that his inappropriate activities
would lead to an uprising, convinced the provincial from Strasbourg to
recall him. While the precise nature of these activities is not men-
tioned, it is reasonable to suppose that Kern was engaged in pro-papal
preaching.18 This conjecture is supported by the strongly negative
response of the city council to the provincials suggestion that Thomas
Murner act as a temporary replacement for Kern.19 Murner, a
Franciscan and doctor of civil and canon law had by 1522 already writ-
ten extensively against Luther and his innovations. The city council
must have envisioned the conflagration that would erupt if it allowed
one of Luthers most vociferous and prolific critics to be installed in
that pulpit. The Franciscan church congregation was apparently a res-
tive hotbed of support for the early Evangelical movement, while the
Franciscan friars were still, at least in part, traditionalists. The city
councils interest lay primarily in keeping the peace; when civic order
was threatened, it did not hesitate to intervene in the affairs of the
Franciscan church.
17
Hat er das hieige Closter zue den parfeern Visitiern, vnd ihren argen wan-
del, auf begeren etlicher guetherzigen mnner, ein klein Reformieren, vllen. Als aber
die Mnch im Kloster solches vermerkht haben sie vom Babst Sixto dem vierten,
welcher ihres ordens gewesen, ain Bullam fr die Reformation haimblich erlangt vnd
folgends dem fromen herren Kaysersperger, die selben vnder augen gehalten vnd als er
die gelesen hat er nicht geredt, dan dise wort, Namblich, eintweder diser Babst ist des
Teufels, oder alles, was ich mein tag geprediget, ist erlogen, vnd darmit seinen abschid
vonn den grauwen Mnchen genomen (Beschreibung, 3v-4a). There are clearly some
problems with this account, since Sixtus IV was pope from 1471 to 1484.
18
Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 156; Eubel concers, quoting an uncited reference
from city secretary Konrad Peutinger that the city council Mnche, die durch Eifer
fr den alten Glauben unter der Brgerschaft Unruhe machten, so schnell als moglich
entfernte (Konrad Eubel, Geschichte der oberdeutschen (Straburger)Minoriten-
Provinz [Wrzburg: F.X. Bucher Verlag, 1886], 97).
19
Ibid.
The Preaching and Program of Brother Hans Schilling
In 1524 another preacher ascended the pulpit who would unleash a

disturbance among his congregation that would threaten the very
foundations of Augsburg society and set the stage for the rest of this
study. In this context, Eucharistic theology and symbolism became a
language through which to articulate a constellation of religious, polit-
ical, and economic concerns. The Franciscan friar Hans Schilling
arrived in Augsburg in the spring of 1524 and quickly assumed the
position of preacher at the orders church.20 Little is known of Schillings
past. He was born in the town of Blaufelden, located in the Margravate
of Ansbach. At some point he joined the Franciscan order and resided
in the friary in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. By 1523 he was preaching
against the clergy and traditional religious practices in Schwbisch
Gmnd.21 As a result of his incendiary sermons, the city council
expelled him from the city. He seems to have been a rather poor
speaker, and the congregation was critical of his words and his pro-
nunciation.22 Nevertheless, he created such a sensation that his reputa-
tion for provocative and biblical preaching quickly spread and great
crowds of people flocked to hear his sermons.23
20
For literature on the Schilling affair, see Wilhelm Vogt, Johann Schilling der
Barfsser-Mnch und der Aufstand in Augsburg im Jahre 1524 (hereafter Vogt,
Schilling) Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins fr Schwaben und Neuburg 6 (1879):
132; Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 156170; Rogge, Nutzen, 253383; Justus Maurer,
Prediger im Bauernkrieg (hereafter Maurer, Prediger) (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1979),
472474; Gustav Bossert, Die Reformation in Blaufelden (hereafter Bossert,
Blaufelden) Bltter fr wrttembergische Kirchengeschichte 6 (1902): 145; Emil
Wagner, Die Reichsstadt Schwbisch Gmnd in den Jahren 15231525 (hereafter
Wagner, Reichsstadt) Wrttembergerische Vierteljahrsheft fr Landesgeschichte 2
(1879): 2633.
21
Bossert, Blaufelden, 3; Wagner, Reichsstadt, 28.
22
der mer auff der Canzel dann sonsten beredt was, sein wort vnd ausprechen sein
ihne ganz hart ankomen, das ich vonn Manchem gehrt habe, das sie ihme wa mglich
gewesen im ausprechen seiner Rede offt gehren geholffen heten (Beschreibung, 4v).
23
The author of the Beschreibung claims that Schilling received a greater crowd of
the common people than any other preacher in Augsburg, Hat er vor allen anderen
predigcanten allhie, einen groen zuelauff vonn dem gemainen volkh yberkomen, vnd
allso in der ganzen statt einen groen Rueff erlangt. The anonymous author of the
chronicle Beschriebene Chronic von A. 1057 bis 1548 (hereafter Chronik 12) concurs
that Schilling drew many people to his sermons, although he dismisses them as being
mostly rabble, Zoch der minich vil volckhs, doch merer tail den Beuel an sich (StAA
Chroniken 12, 191). Vogt transcribes portions of Chronik 12 relating to the Schilling
affair on pp. 2529 of his article. The account of the Schilling affair in Augsburg Chronik
bis 1548 (hereafter Chronik 46) (StAA Chronik 46) is, except for orthographic varia-
tions and occasional word changes, identical to that of Chronik 12.
50 chapter two
It was the content of his message rather than the elegance of its
delivery that drew large crowds. Much to the delight of his audience,
Schilling was an aggressive preacher who condemned powerful inter-
ests in the city. Most generally, however, Schillings sermons were anti-
papal and critical of traditional religion. He is said to have preached
against church practices and papal abuses.24 Witnesses claim that he
took particular aim at the cathedral canons, criticizing their abuses
and denouncing them by name.25 They would have been an easy target,
since, as indicated in chapter one, they had aroused much resentment
within the city by refusing to allow Augsburg citizens to join their
ranks. Made up entirely of landed nobility, the canons represented
a foreign, unregulated force in the religious life of Augsburgers.
Associating the traditional religion with such alien and disruptive fig-
ures was an effective way for Schilling to discredit the religion as incon-
sistent with civic unity and autonomy.
It was not just the cathedral canons who felt threatened by Schillings
sermons. He appears to have aroused general antipathy among the
24
Chronik 12, 190; Achilles Pirminius Gasser, Annales de vetustate originis, amoe-
nitate situs, splendore aedificorum, ac rebus gestis civium reipublicaeque
Augstburgensisper Achillem Pirminium Gassarum (hereafter Gasser, Annales),
in Scriptores rerum Germanicarum praecipue Saxonicarum, vol. 1, ed. Johannes
Burchard Mencken (Leipzig, 1728), 1771.
25
vnd haben alle seine glosa, wider die pfaffen des stiffts alhie gelautet vnnd diesel-
ben mit iren mibrauchen, oftermalen an der Cantzel benannt (Ain seltzamer aufflauf
vnd wilde ongewonliche Entbrung, welche sich zwischen ainem Erbern Rathe vnd ge-
mainde der Stat Augspurg anno 1524, aines Barfuessers Munichs halben, begeben vnnd
zugetragen hat, Erstlich durch Clementen Jgern zusamen getragen vnnd beschriben,
Anno 1532 [hereafter aufflauf], 6r-6v [SStBA 4 Th]). This report is, except for minor
variations in orthography and wording, usually identical to the Beschreibung. However,
it includes this sentence, which the Beschreibung leaves out. Although I have not been
able to establish textual dependence, it may be possible that the aufflauf, from 1532,
pre-dates the Beschreibung, which claimed to have been written fifty years after the
1488 visit of Geiler von Kaisersberg, thus placing it in 1538. However, since the Be-
schreibung was mistaken on various points of chronology, the author may also have
been unclear on the exact date of Kaisersbergs arrival. Further, the round term of
50 years ago may not have been meant to convey absolute precision. In any case, the
two accounts were likely composed within a few years of each other. To complicate
matters further, another sixteenth-century account of the Schilling affair exists, enti-
tled, Acta was sich zu augspurg fr ein auffruhr und wiederwrtigkait zugetragen, we-
gen eines barfen Munichs nahmens Johannes Schilling Anno 1524 (StAA EWA
481). Again, it is nearly identical to the beschreibung and the aufflauf. However, when
the two accounts vary, the Acta follows the Beschreibung. Since there is no record of
anything by Schillings own hand, these accounts, along with chronicles, interrogation
records, and city council records, form the documentary base for my reconstruction of
his program.
clergy. Wilhelm Rem records in his chronicle that Schilling preached

good Evangelical things from the Holy Scripture. The common peo-
ple heard him with great pleasure, but the priests and some on the city
council did not.26 The priests and clergy were also said to have
denounced Schilling and his hearers as heretics.27
Schilling was apparently behind the most aggressive protest in the
early period of the Augsburg Reformation against traditional church
practices and the clergy who conducted them. On the morning of
May8, 1524, a friar entered the Franciscan church to consecrate salt
and water at the font. An unusually large crowd had gathered to watch
this weekly ritual, and as he opened his sacramentary, the glazier
Bartholomus Nufelder stepped forward and demanded that the friar
state what he intended to do. The friar responded petulantly that he
was about to consecrate the water and the salt, as Nufelder could
plainly see. Nufelder indignantly asked him how long he was going to
carry on this blasphemy, accused him of trying to divert the people
from the Evangelical truth, and demanded that he hand over the
book.28 Nufelder then grabbed the book from the friar and proceeded
to dunk it in the water. He pulled it out and in a grandiose act attempted
to rip it apart. He was unable to perform this feat, however, because the
sacramentary was made of parchment.
At this point his cohort, the bag maker Franz Laminit, stepped for-
ward, and cut the book in pieces with his knife. He then re-submerged
the remains of the book in the water, declaring that it must be baptized.
Finally, he threw in the salt and scattered the cut-up book among the
people. The drama taking place at the font was playing to a lively audi-
ence. People were taunting the friar and encouraging Nufelder and
Laminit in their actions. Women seemed to be particularly prominent
in their display of antipathy, with many crying out that the officiant
himself should be thrown into the water.29
26
Wilhelm Rem, Cronica newer geschichten, in Die Chroniken der deutschen
Stdte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, vol. 25 (Die Chroniken der schwbischen Stdte:
Augsburg, vol. 5) (hereafter Rem, Cronica) (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1966), 204205.
27
Beschreibung, 11r.
28
Chronik 12, 187; see also the interrogation record of Nufelder from May 8, 1524,
1r-1v (StAA Urgichten K3 15231525); and Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 158159.
Nufelder admits that he had planned the confrontation in advance with some of his
companions (2v). This explains the crowd that had gathered that morning.
29
See Nufelders interrogation, page 4r.
52 chapter two
Of particular concern to the city council was the statement by the

weaver Hans Beringer, who, reflecting on the saying A convent is more
than an abbot, shouted out the question, Is, then, a mayor more than
a commune?30 Beringer was apparently thinking about the right of a
commune to carry out a reformation in the face of a reluctant city
council, but the council saw the much broader implication, as the later
interrogation records of Beringer will demonstrate. The city council
acted by quickly rounding up suspects and participants. Nufelder was
temporarily exiled from the city, while Laminit was imprisoned in the
tower for four weeks.
While the city council was concerned that the self-assertiveness of a
citizenry willing to assume control over religious transformation
might spread to other realms of civic lifeand we shall see shortly
that its fears were not unfoundedthe traditional clergy must have
been concerned that the citys Evangelical preachers had supporters
ready to implement their sermons rhetoric. During his interrogation,
Nufelder admitted that he had criticized the friar for acting in a
manner contrary to what the preachers preached.31 Further, the author
of Beschriebene Chronik mentions specifically the preacher at the
Franciscan church, that is, Schilling, among other preachers who had
declared that such consecration was blasphemous and should not take
place. The author concludes with the observation that no more conse-
crations at the font took place either at the Franciscan church or at St.
Anna (another center of Evangelical preaching in Augsburg).32
Schilling and the Reformation preachers at the St. Anna friary church
the prior Johannes Frosch, and since 1523 Stephan Agricola and occa-
sionally Urbanus Rhegiuswere in (presumably friendly) contact with
each other. On at least one occasion Schilling and the preacher from
St. Anna (probably Frosch) were guests together at the house of the
30
See the interrogation records of Beringer from May 8 and 11, 1524. Er hette offt
ain sprichwort gehort, ain conuent were mer weder ain abbt, vnd darauff gesagt, ist ain
burgermaister mer weder ain gemain (1r). About to be tortured, Beringer attempted
to appease his captors by stating that he had never believed or wished to communicate
that a commune was actually greater than a mayor (2v). Apparently, the city magis-
tracy objected to this statement of political theory itselfwhich a half-century before
would have been uncontroversialand not merely to the disruptive manner in which
it was spoken.
31
See Nufelders interrogation records, 3r.
32
Ain minich vnd prediger zu der Barfusservnd ander predigten er wer ain
Gottslesterung vnd soltt nit sein, darnach hat man zu den Barfussen vnd zu Sant Anna,
khain weichbrunen mer geweicht (Chronik 12, 188).
weaver Leonhard Knoringer, a man who later would be implicated in a

plot to challenge the authority of the city council.33 Whether or to what
extent they coordinated their campaigns against adherents of tradi-
tional religion in the city is unknown. It was certainly no coincidence,
however, that the protest action took place at the Franciscan church.
Schillings aggressive preaching combined with the restive nature of
the large crowds contributed to produce an explosive situation.
Beringers menacing assertion of popular sovereignty gave expres-
sionto a level of political and religious discontent within the congrega-
tion that may not have existed in the more affluent congregation of
St. Anna.
It would be a mistake, however, to categorize Schilling exclusively as
a preacher against traditional religious practices. Rather, his attacks on
the Catholic religion must be seen as part of a larger populist program
to attack centers of power within society and the ideologies that sup-
ported them. The author of the Beschriebene Chronik writes that
Schilling preached severely against spiritual and secular magistracy,
capturing nicely in that phrase the conceptual identity in Schillings
mind of these two hierarchies.34 They were, for Schilling, different
manifestations of the same phenomenon.
Schilling objected to the Catholic concept of the priesthood as an
institution that stood above the lay world, controlling and mediating
its access to God. His attacks on church practices such as consecrating
water, salt, and, as we shall see below, the Eucharistic host reflect an
awareness that the clergys purported power to imbue objects with
sacred power and then control lay access to those objects strengthened
the clergys claim to playing an indispensable role in the attempts of lay
persons to gain access to the divine. Much of the personal behavior
that appeared scandalous to many of his contemporaries must be seen
as an attempt to break down the separation that existed between clergy
and the laity. Schilling attempted to remove those visual distinctions,
so important in medieval and early modern society, that distinguished
him from the laity. He let his tonsurewhich was often interpreted
as a clerical crown and symbol of authoritygrow out.35 Further, on
33
See the interrogation records of Leonhard Knoringer from October 8, 1524, 2r
(StAA, Urgichten K3 15231525).
34
Schillingprediget strefflich wider gaistlich vnd welttlich obrigkait (Ibid.,
190).
35
Chronik 12, 190.
54 chapter two
occasion he appeared dressed as a soldier, a distinctly unclerical

profession with which to be identified.36 While living in Augsburg, he
would often spend his evenings in lay clothing.37
During his stay in Augsburg, Schilling acquired a reputation as a
man who liked to have a good time. He cultivated close relations with
members of his congregation and liked to go out drinking with them.
He also invited them to socialize with him in the Franciscan friary.
He was accused of having inappropriate relations with women.38
A Benedictine chronicler from St. Ulrich and Afra, Clemens Sender,
also accused Schilling of having solicited advice from his companions
regarding the content of his sermons and having been well paid off for
it.39 At least the first half of this accusation has a ring of truth to it.
Schilling was not a native of Augsburg, and he would have arrived rela-
tively ignorant of the local constellation of political, economic, and
spiritual forces in power in the city, as well as of the specific grievances
of the Augsburg citizenry. That he was able to arouse so much anger in
his opponents in the half year or so that he resided there indicates that
he had been informed by some members of his congregation on how
to frame his message so that it would have the maximum effect in the
local context. The only instance of this approach that has come down
to us is Schillings decision to identify the traditional religion with the
36
Clemens Sender, a Benedictine monk from the Augsburg cloister St. Ulrich and
Afra, writes in his chronicle about Schillings conduct during his prior preaching posi-
tion in the city of Schwbisch Gmnd. He claims that Schilling oft sein orden het
hingeworfen und wie ain landsknecht gangen (Die Chronik von Clemens Sender
von den ltesten Zeiten der Stadt bis zum Jahre 1536 [hereafter Sender, Chronik], in
Die Chroniken der deutschen Stdte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, vol. 23 [Die
Chroniken der schwbischen Stdte, Augsburg, vol. 4] [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966], 156). Senders accusation that Schilling had tossed away his station
and gone about like a soldier may have referred in part to Schillings alleged drinking,
carousing, and unchastity. However, the possibility that he actually dressed like a sol-
dier should not be excluded. In fact, in March 1525, a few months after Schilling had
left Augsburg, he reappeared again in the city, this time wearing the clothing of a sol-
dier (landsknecht) (Vogt, Schilling, 17).
37
Chronik 12, 190.
38
Diser brueder Han Schilling, was auch gar ein guet gesell, mit zechen vnd
sonst, ward zuuil malen zu gast augeladen vnd kamen seine gesellen, vnd guete gn-
ner in das kloster zue ihme, vnd ward ihme sonsten vom seinen geliebten niht wenig
ehr erzaigt vnd bewisen (Beschreibung, 4v); Hielt sich daneben mit frawen vnd nacht
in layen klaidern zu geen vnd hielt sich etwas vngeschickht (Chronik 12, 190); Da hat
diser barfsser, wie er zu Gmnd hat auffrur gemacht, unkeuschait triben und ist
tglich vol wein gewesen, also hat er zu Augspurg auch than (Sender, Chronik, 156).
39
Sender, Chronik, 156.
citys least popular adherents to the old faith, the cathedral canons. The
success of this technique required a certain amount of insider
information.
Schillings behavior can be interpreted through a variety of lenses.
First, it could be seen as part of a pattern of undisciplined behavior that
had plagued the Franciscan friary of Augsburg since the middle of the
fifteenth century. It might also be seen as an expression of Franciscan
populism and commitment to live in proximity to the common people.
While these factors highlight the institutional context in which
Schilling was operating and provide the background to his scandalous
behavior, they do not fully explain that behavior. Schilling went beyond
mere transgression of the rules and norms governing monastic behav-
ior. Instead, he seemed committed to erasing all boundaries between
himself and his lay companions, whether it was the physical boundary
of the friary wall or the symbolic boundary of dress. He even breached
the vocational boundary between the clergy who prepared and
preached the sermon, and the laity who listened. His scandalous con-
duct formed part of his program to dismantle the clerical hierarchy.
If Schilling had confined his criticism to clerical power, the city
council probably would have left him in his place. However, for
Schilling, the mediating clergy were only part of a nexus of hierarchies
that dominated the lives of the common people. The political and eco-
nomic elites of Augsburg were equally worthy of condemnation. The
author of the Beschriebene Chronik states that the crowds attending
Schillings sermons were much more interested in obtaining a share of
the wealthys riches than they were in maintaining peace and seeing to
the establishment of the Gospel.40 Schilling apparently did his best to
validate and exacerbate the sense of resentment and injustice within
his congregation. He was accused of giving the impression in his
preaching that all things should be held in common.41 The chronicler,
notably, does not accuse Schilling of actually declaring this. Schilling
was probably too clever to make such a radical statement; it is also
unlikely that he adhered to this position. Instead, whether through his
heated rhetoric or through insinuation, he encouraged revolutionary
ideas in the minds of some of his congregants.
40
Chronik 12, 191. Their response, of course, would have been that greater eco-
nomic justice was a demand of the Gospel.
41
Er lie sich auch in seinen predigen heren al ob alle ding gemain sein soltten
(Chronik 12, 190191).
56 chapter two
According to the author of the Beschreibung, these sermons rup-

tured love and produced discord between rich and poor.42 Of course,
the degree to which love had previously existed between rich and poor
is questionable. The situation would be better described as a wary
peace. Schilling succeeded in rupturing such peace as there was by
helping his congregation to articulate their grievances in a powerful
way and gain confidence that they could successfully advance their
cause. Schilling provided the disgruntled members of his congregation
with a religious vocabulary through which to express their discontent,
and a transcendent legitimization for their cause in a God who was on
their side and would bring them victory.
Evidence suggests that the economic program of Schilling and his
congregation was not some utopian scheme like a community of goods.
Rather, as a parallel to the religious vision, in which a clerical elite
would no longer control the religious system, manipulating it to its
own advantage and regulating the laitys access to God, the economic
program advocated ending the control of the wealthy over artisans
economic activity and their manipulation of the economic system.
A list of demands to the city council that emerged from some of
Schillings supporters insisted on the abolition of all merchant firms, so
that each person could trade for himself, and on the elimination of the
excise tax on beer and wine.43 The great merchant firms were viewed by
artisans in Augsburg as powerful economic forces that regulated their
access to markets, both to the raw goods they needed and to potential
42
Beschreibung, 5r.
43
This list was written in the aftermath of the demonstration that was provoked by
the city councils decision to expel Schilling. The demonstration itself will be discussed
at greater length below. The council learned of about nine (or perhaps ten) out of a list
of twelve demands, probably through informants. Its information was written up in
the report entitled, Ambres Mller Melchior Schnieder after the first people men-
tioned in the report. Although included in the Urgichten, it is not, like the other docu-
ments in the collection, an interrogation record. The relevant demands are: Zum 5.
Bier wider zu Brewen, wie vor Jarn, vnnd kain vngelt dauon zugeben, and Zum 6. alle
gesllschaft abzuthun. vnd ain yeder fur sich selbs zuhandln 8r (StAA Urgichten K3
15231525). The list of demands has also been transcribed in Vogt, Schilling, 19.
There is another copy of the articles inserted in the interrogation records of Ulrich
Leser from Sept. 1820, 1524. It is not clear, however, that the single-page document
was originally associated with the Leser case. Although usually following the Mller/
Schnieder list, it includes, and then crosses out, the demand for the abolition of mer-
chant guilds, and adds in its place an additional article demanding an end to excise
taxes on wine, zum sechten das man das wein vngelt wie vor absch[affen] solt (StAA
Urgichten K3 15231525).
purchasers of their products. The artisans wanted self-interested mer-

chants controlling their contact with markets no more than they
wanted self-interested priests controlling their contact with God. Every
artisan should have direct, unimpeded access to markets, just as every
believer should have direct, unimpeded access to God. Further, excise
taxes on staple goods were consistently opposed by the middling and
lower economic segments of society because they believed such taxes
required them to pay a disproportionate share relative to their income.
From their perspective, property taxes, which taxed the wealthy at a
higher rate, were a more equitable way of collecting revenue. The
imposition of an excise tax was further indication that the powerful
economic elite was manipulating the economic system to their own
advantage.
In addition to challenging the spiritual and economic authorities
who regulated the lives of his congregants and controlled their access
to things vital to their well-being, Schilling apparently confronted the
political authority of the city council. This prong of his attack was by
far the most treacherous. As Hans Beringer had learned, the city coun-
cil tolerated no challenges to its authority. It is also the part of his pro-
gram the least well documented in the sources. We have already
mentioned above how Schilling was accused of having preached
against the secular magistracy. Although the chronicler does not
record the exact nature of his criticism, most likely it related to the
councils unwillingness to implement the Reformation quickly enough.
The Reformation movement in the cities required delicate maneuver-
ing by city councils. If peace were to be maintained, restive pro-
Reformation movements had to be appeased with the implementation
of certain demands. However, if one moved too quickly or appeared
too radical, the council risked galvanizing powerful forces of tradi-
tional religion both inside and outside the city. As described above in
the first chapter, the council had to analyze the local, regional, and
national political climate carefully before deciding whether to proceed
with further church reforms. Furthermore, the council had to take care
that in acceding to the demands of people it did not lend support to
concepts of popular sovereignty menacing sixteenth-century city gov-
ernments. However, by not acceding to the demands, it risked a break-
down of the climate of deference towards its authority that it had
carefully cultivated over the past century. Under these conditions, an
assertion of popular sovereignty was even more likely to re-emerge
and spill over to other issues in the secular realm. Once again the case
58 chapter two
of Hans Beringer is illustrative of the challenges presented to the

Augsburg city council by an assertive Reformation movement. In addi-
tion, as noted in chapter one above, the city elites dependence on the
emperor for its economic privileges made the implementation of reli-
gious change in Augsburg particularly dangerous.
It was precisely in this environment of discontent about the level of
conciliar commitment to the Reformation that Schilling directed his
challenges against the council. Schilling was accused of opposing the
city council with a bitter spirit (mit biterem gemth).44 Further, he was
charged with having undermined his congregations patience and its
attitude of obedience to which the council was accustomed.45 While
the peoples lack of patience probably revolved primarily around a per-
ceived lack of progress on religious matters, we saw above that certain
economic grievances were alive in the congregation. These could only
be addressed by intervention from the council. Schilling emphasized
the need to diminish the control of both religious and economic elites.
If the council was not part of the solution, then it contributed to the
problem. In this case the commune would need to take the initiative
itself and ensure that the necessary reforms were enacted. As Schilling
was reported to have preached, Where a city council does not act,
then the commune must act.46 The issue of popular sovereignty, as
well as the legitimacy of the commune as a political force, emerged
when a preponderance of Augsburg artisans began to perceive the
council as having been hijacked by people working only in the interest
of the economic and spiritual elite. When they came to the conclusion
that their voices were no longer represented on the council and that
they no longer had access to the decision-making process, the legiti-
macy of the council was called into question.
It was certainly no accident that upon acquiring the preachership,
Schilling chose the Gospel according to Luke as his text.47 Over the
next few months on Sunday mornings, Tuesday mornings, Saturday
44
Beschreibung, 14v.
45
aufflauf, 7b. The Beschreibung does not include the reference to the city councils
expectation of obedience (5r).
46
Gepredigt wa ain rhat nit handln, so muss die gemain handln (Vogt, Schilling,
23). This charge appears in the account of the Schilling affair written into the city
council records of 1524 by the city secretary Conrad Peutinger. Vogt has transcribed a
large section of this account as an appendix to his article.
47
Vnd nach dem diser Brueder Han Schilling den predigstuel vonn dem Gardian
erlangt, hat er den Euangelisten Lucam zue predigen angefangen (Beschreibung, 4v).
afternoons, and holy days, he preached on Luke, reaching the third

chapter by August.48 Lukes Gospel, more than any other book in the
New Testament, seeks to identify Jesus with the poor, and his mission
with their cause. In Luke, God is more clearly on the side of the poor
and powerless than in the other Gospels.
The first three chapters of Luke provide some irresistible passages
for a fiery populist preacher. It is in Luke that the Magnificat is found,
in which Mary utters the words: He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts / he has
put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low
degree / he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he
has sent away empty (Lk. 1: 51-53). Luke is the only Gospel that
records the story of the lowly shepherds visit to Jesus in the manger
(Lk. 2:8-20). Luke alone indicates that Jesus came from a poor family
by recording that Mary, at the time of her purification, offered a turtle
dove or two young pigeons, which was the sacrifice stipulated in the
law for those who could not afford a lamb (Lk. 2:22-24; Lev. 12:2-8).
Only Lukes Gospel records an exchange between John the Baptist and
the multitudes in which John rebukes the crowd for seeking safety
in religion without displaying proper behavior, which he defines as
sharing with the needy, faithfully discharging public duties, and
refraining from oppressing people with force (Lk. 3:7-14). Schillings
interpretation of this text eventually resulted in his expulsion from
the city. Apparently he expounded the passage so offensively and
severely that the city council finally mustered the will to take action
against him.
Although he would never get the chance to preach beyond chapter
three, undoubtedly Schilling was eagerly anticipating the day when
he would arrive at Lukes decidedly un-spiritualizing version of the
beatitudes in chapter six: Blessed are the poor, for yours is the king-
dom of God. Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. Woe to you that
are full now, for you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now, for you
shall mourn and weep (Lk. 6:20-25). Further along, in chapter
sixteen, Luke alone records the story of the rich man (Dives) who went
48
The aufflauf records that he chose certain days for his sermons, like Sunday after-
noon and Tuesday morning (7r). The Beschreibung states that he chose certain days for
his sermons, like Sunday, all holy days, Saturday afternoon, and Tuesday morning (4v).
60 chapter two
to hell because he ignored the poor man Lazarus at his gate, who him-
self was rewarded in the next life. Abraham, holding the poor man
in his lap, explained to the rich man, Son, remember that you in your
lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner
evil things; but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish
(Lk. 16:25).
It is not difficult to imagine the explosive potential of these texts in
a society already characterized by tense social and economic relations.
Hearers could readily interpret these passages to mean that God
intended to reward the poor and powerless and to bring low the rich
and powerful. Further, neither Marys Magnificat nor Johns discourse
with the multitude, which includes the statement Even now the axe is
laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good
fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Lk. 3:9), gives any indica-
tion that God intends to wait until the next world to rectify these injus-
tices. While these passages need not be interpreted in this vein, a
preacher seeking to make this point could find no richer trove of texts
in the New Testament than the Gospel of Luke. Schilling was arming
himself with powerful material.
Knowing that Schilling had chosen this book as the basis of his ser-
mons not only provides an inkling of the sorts of sermons he may have
preached, it also demonstrates that Schilling arrived in Augsburg with
a specific agenda in mind. It reveals that his program was neither a fig-
ment of jittery elites imaginations, nor did it take shape in a patchwork
over time. At the very beginning of his tenure, he chose the book of the
Bible that would most effectively allow him to undermine the control
of the religious, the economic, and even the political elite within the
city. It provides corroborating evidence that the perceived results of
Schillings preaching were also the intended effects of the preachers
plan, and thus accurate reflections of his intentions and convictions. It
is important to establish this point, because the ensuing discussion of
Schillings treatment of Eucharistic issues seeks to interpret his actions
in the light of what the foregoing section has concluded about his reli-
gious and social views generally.
Further evidence that Schilling arrived in Augsburg with a plan
in hand comes from accounts of his activities before arriving in
Augsburg. Before coming to Augsburg, Schilling had preached in
Schwbisch Gmnd, a free imperial city in Wrttemberg lying about
100 kilometers northwest of Augsburg.49 After Schillings particularly

incendiary sermon on John the Baptists rebuke of the multitudes, the
Augsburg city council met to decide on a course of action against him.
According to the Beschreibung, the council wrote to the city council of
Giengen (actually Schwbisch Gmnd) to learn more about Schillings
background and his conduct while in the city.50 The city council wrote
back to report that he had come to them from the Wrttemberg region
and had engaged in such vile and dangerous behavior and preaching
that he had embittered the citizens towards each other. They further
reported that he had cultivated close relations with certain citizens,
inviting them into the friary to drink with him. They closed the letter
with a warning to avoid contact with the friar.51 Sender reports that
Schilling had caused an uproar in Schwbisch Gmnd.52 Peutingers
account of the Schilling affair also states that Schilling provoked strife
and uproar in the city.53 Schillings activities prior to spring 1524 dem-
onstrate that he was already committed to a program of exacerbating
social tensions and dismantling barriers between clergy and laity.
Schilling continued on the same path after he left Augsburg in
November 1524. Returning to his hometown of Blaufelden, he found
the local congregation involved in a dispute over its parish priest with
the cathedral chapter at Wrzburg and Margrave Kasimir of Ansbach.
Well advanced in age and unwavering in his adherence to the tradi-
tional religion, this elderly cleric had become a target for religious
reformers within the congregation. Having lost hope in the Wrzburg
canons, who held patronage rights, the congregation turned to the
margrave, asking him to intervene and appoint someone who would
preach the gospel truly. In fact, they already had somebody in mind,
the native son, Hans Schilling, whom they were at the moment sup-
porting with their own money. But reports were coming in that
Schilling was slandering the clergy and attacking traditional religious
49
Peutinger and Sender place him in Schwbisch Gmnd. This is confirmed by
Wagner (Wagner, Reichsstadt, 28). The Beschreibung mistakenly places him in
Giengen. For Peutingers reference to Schwbisch Gmnd, see Vogt, Schilling, 23;
Sender, Chronik, 156; Beschreibung, 5v-6r.
50
Beschreibung, 5r-5v.
51
Ibid.
52
53
Vogt, Schilling, 23.
62 chapter two
practices.54 On March 16, 1525, the margrave responded by accusing

Schilling of causing scandal and rebellion and ordering him out of the
territory.55 This order was apparently preempted, however, by the larger
concern over the gathering peasant unrest that would eventually break
out into the Peasants War. The margrave sent a representative to talk
with the Blaufeldeners, and he was presented with a list of seven
demands. Some were largely religious in nature, like the removal of
catholic clergy and the appointment of Schilling. One, the elimination
of the small tithe, combined religious and economic grievances. Others
were secular in nature, like the elimination of labor services and the
abolition of serfdom.56 Schilling demonstrates a record, before, during,
and after his time in Augsburg of exacerbating tensions in contexts
where people had overlapping religious, political, and economic
grievances.
The Augsburg city council was alarmed by reports from Schwbisch
Gmnd and quickly obtained from Schillings provincial a letter of
recall. Then, representatives of the city council went to Schilling,
showed him the letter, and offered him 20 fl. and the use of a horse and
a servant if he would depart the city immediately without informing
anyone. When Schilling agreed to the deal, the council thought it had
rid itself of a potentially explosive problem. As we have already indi-
cated above, the council was mistaken in its assumption that the sup-
porters of Schilling would meekly accept the removal of their preacher.
The aftermath of his expulsion will be discussed in greater detail in this
chapter below, as well as in chapter five.
Schilling, His Supporters, and the Eucharist as an Interpretive Center
Schillings scandalous behavior was not limited to his approximation

to the lay world or his rebuke of the city elites. Perhaps most offensive
to some would have been his allegedly impious attitudes towards the
consecrated elements of the Eucharist. The author of the Augsburg
Chronik bis 1548 writes of Schilling,
He also preached extremely sacrilegious sermons on the most holy
Sacrament and treated the holy Sacrament disrespectfully when he
54
Bossert, Blaufelden, 24.
55
Ibid., 6.
56
Ibid., 68.
administered it to the people. And, in addition, over the wine he engaged

in insulting talk in the presence of the people regarding the processions
with the most holy Sacrament and how one preserved it in ciboriums
and otherwise in the churches.57
The accusations of this chronicler, himself a supporter of the Evangelical
cause, should be taken seriously. His characterization of Schillings atti-
tude toward the elements as sacrilegious and disrespectful should be
interpreted as more than an attempt to denigrate a man who denied
transubstantiation or criticized certain standard abuses. Schilling
must have been engaged in activities that offended even the chroni-
clers Evangelical (although perhaps Lutheran) sensibilities.
The other important text relating to Schillings behavior towards the
Eucharist is found in the chronicle of Karl Stengel, abbot of Anhausen,
Already having joined the camp of Luther and Wycliffe, he was trapped
in the same year during the feast of Corpus Christi respecting his con-
tempt for the most holy and majestic sacrament of the Eucharist. He
arranged a meal on a balcony erected on a roof (in German: on the bal-
cony above the shopkeepers guild) with nine more citizens of his type, in
which, being without doubt goaded by an evil spirit, he cut up a radish
just as if it were a host and distributed the supper of the Lord Christ to
those present, acting as though it were an object of derision.58
Then, according to the account, God avenged himself on the perpetra-
tors of this outrageous sacrilege by bringing the balcony crashing
57
Er thett auch gantz freuel predigen des hochwirdigen Sacrament halben vnnd
gieng leichtfertig mit dem hailligen Sacrament Vmb, wann ehr die leyt darmit versach,
vnnd darneben trib ehr bey dem Wein, vor den leytten schimpfflichen reden, die vmb-
gang, mit dem hailligen sacrament, vnnd das Mann es in den hayslach, vnnd sunst in
den kirchen, behielt bedreffent (Chronik 46, 299r). The similar passage from the
Beschriebene Chronik, which is quoted in Vogt, Schilling, 26, is less clear in points:
Er thet auch gantz freuenlich predigen de hochwrdigen Sacraments halben, vnd
gieng leichtfertig mit dem halligen Sacrament vmb, wan er die leith darmit versach.
vnd daneben trib er bei dem wein vor den Leithen Schempfflich Reden, von dem
hochwrdigen Sacrament, da man e in den heulen vnd Sunst in den kirchen
behielt (Chronik 12, 190).
58
Is Lutheri et Wiclephi cestro [sic] jam antea inescatus eodem anno in festo cor-
poris Christi in despectum sacrosancti et tremendi Eucharistiae sacramenti coenam in
solario supra tectum erecto, vulgo auff der Altana ob der krommer zunfthau cum
novem aliis suae sortis civibus instituit in qua malo haud dubie genio stimulatus raph-
ano in modum hostiarum dissceto, Christi domini caenam per ludibrium praesenti-
bus dispensavit (Vogt, Schilling, 3031). Vogt transcribes this passage from p. 264 of
Stengels Chronicle, rerum Augustan. Vindel. commentarius, which was published in
Ingolstadt in 1647. The nine other citizens of his type probably refers to fellow blas-
phemers and rabble-rousers.
64 chapter two
down. Sigismund Schneider, a goldsmith, plunged to his death below.

The others managed to survive by hanging onto the rain gutters.
Although this event is recounted in a seventeenth-century chroni-
cle, Stengel claims to be quoting from Senders contemporaneous
chronicle for his information on Schilling. However, no other surviv-
ing version of Senders chronicle contains the account that Stengel
relates. Taking note of this inconsistency, Vogt had held out the hope
that a critical edition of Senders chronicle would resolve this apparent
problem. Friedrich Roths edition of Senders chronicle appeared in
1896 and, although he was aware of Vogts article, he did not discuss
the problem of the origin of Stengels account. Although the event is
described neither in the main text nor in the variant, Stengel probably
had access to yet another variant text that contained a description of
the event.
The only other mention of this event comes from an eighteenth-
century Augsburg chronicle. It describes the collapse of the balcony
during a meal and the fall of the goldsmith Schneider. However, it
does not mention Schilling or the Eucharistic parody.59 Further, it
refers to Caspar Schneider instead of Sigismund Schneider and relates
that he lost an arm instead of dying, indicating that the author of
the chronicle was using something other than Stengels chronicle as a
source.
It is plausible to assume that some actual event took place that
formed the basis for these two narratives. Indeed, given what the
chronicler of the Beschreibung reported about Schillings attitude
towards the Eucharist, it may have happened as Stengel described. It is
curious, though, that none of the many extant contemporary chroni-
cles recorded such a dramatic event. It is, however, not absolutely nec-
essary to prove that this incident happened just as Stengel related it for
his account to have interpretative significance. Indeed, the narrative is
constructed with such elegant symbolic symmetry and sense of the
dramatic that it reads more like a myth than a strictly factual account.
As such, the details of the narrative can be interpreted in terms of their
symbolic or representative value, and the overall narrative can be
understood to communicate a comprehensive interpretation of
Schillings position vis--vis the Eucharist. Our task will be to read
through the negative construction of Schillings intentions in order to
59
place his understanding of the Eucharist in the context of his larger

agenda in Augsburg.
First, it would be a mistake to characterize Schillings actions or atti-
tude towards the Eucharist as self-consciously impious or irreligious.
Nor did he mean to disparage the celebration itself. Gasser reports that
Schillings final act before he left his congregation for the last time on
November 9, 1524, was to celebrate the Lords Supper with them.60 This
must have been a moving farewell uniting Schilling and his supporters,
and one that would not have taken place if Schilling had only disdain
for the ceremony.
Returning to the statements in the Beschriebene Chronik, it appears
that Schilling focused his criticism on the traditional reverence for the
elements, to the extent that at times he gave the appearance of scorning
the elements themselves. His primary objective seems to have been to
desacralize the elements, to eliminate the reverence that the congrega-
tion had for the objects, in order to focus their attention elsewhere. For
this reason, he acted and spoke disrespectfully about the elements as
he administered them to the congregation.61 The reception of the host,
which, as the body of Christ, was the most powerful spiritual object in
Christendom, was a moment of great spiritual danger for the commu-
nicant. Lay people were encouraged to cultivate a sense of awe as they
gazed upon the consecrated host; the act of ingesting this most sacred
item could convey either great benefit or harm, depending on the spir-
itual state of the recipient. To break his congregation of the habit of
adoring the host, Schilling makes his sacrilegious remarks during
sermons, and then reminds his hearers again of what he had taught
them just before they received the host.
His objection to the treatment of the elements of the Eucharist as
holy objects is particularly evident in his criticism of reserving the host
after communion and of Eucharistic processions. A number of differ-
ent objects, each with its own purpose, were designated to hold the
reserved host. The ciborium, which was mentioned in the text, was an
often ornately decorated container either enclosed in an extension of
the altar or hanging from it by attached chains. In it, the priest would
place consecrated hosts that were to be used later for liturgical pur-
poses. Schillings criticism of the reservation of the host otherwise in
60
Gasser, Annales, 1775.
61
The wording of the text makes it unclear whether he actually gave the wine to the
congregation, or consumed it himself.
66 chapter two
the churches probably refers to the practice of placing the host in a

monstrance. A monstrance was a hand-held container for a host or a
relic that had a window permitting the viewing of the sacred object.
The monstrance could be used in a procession to carry the host through
the streets. It could also be stood up on the altar so that the faithful
could worship Christ under the form of bread at their convenience,
instead of being required to restrict their adoration to the moment of
the hosts elevation during the mass. The laity demanded frequent dis-
plays of the host, although the practice encountered resistance from
some in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Nevertheless, by the late Middle
Ages it had become an important aspect of devotional life.
Schilling also condemned processions involving the consecrated
host. The most prominent such procession occurred during the feast of
Corpus Christi, a celebration of the Eucharistic presence of Christ,
which occurs on the Thursday after the Feast of the Holy Trinity.62 It
was declared a universal church holy day in 1264 and spread through-
out Germany in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.
Originally, the clergy processed with the host inside the cathedral.
However, by the fifteenth century the procession followed a course
through the city and involved representatives of important political
and economic forces and constituencies within the city. The center of
the procession was still the host, displayed in a monstrance, whose
sacred power consecrated the citys physical geography, its political
and economic order, and its power structure. Civic leaders processed,
in order of rank, in proximity to Christs physical body, which repre-
sented and legitimized the corpus Christianum as it presented itself in
the procession. It was also meant to ensure prosperity and security for
the entire civic commune. It would be carried by a cleric in the com-
pany of civic leaders, and spectators were expected to show due rever-
ence when the host passed by. A host in a monstrance could also be
processed through the city on occasions when the community was in
particular need of divine intervention, such as during times of war,
disease, or famine. A sort of impromptu procession often took place
when a priest brought a consecrated host (taken out of the ciborium)
to the home of a sick person for the purpose of administering last rites.
The host would be placed in a pyx, a box that differed from a mon-
strance in that it contained no window to allow a view of the contents.
62
On the development of the feast of Corpus Christi, see Rubin, Corpus.
Nevertheless, people who chanced upon such an event would com-

monly kneel in worship at the presence of the host and/or follow along
behind the priest to the home of the sick person.
Uniting Schillings condemnation of adoring the host during com-
munion, reserving the host in ciboriums or monstrances, and engag-
ing in processions with the consecrated host is his consistent rejection
of the view that the divine could be enclosed or contained in a material
object. In the cases of the display of the host in monstrances at the altar
and in processions, the offense appears to be most severe. In those
cases, the host was taken out of its liturgical context where it served, at
least in part, as a reminder of Jesus Last Supper, and thus tended to
become an object of pure spiritual power that could be employed by its
handlers and worshippers for a variety of ends. During the procession,
religious and social elites within the city pressed the host into the ser-
vice of their broader agendas.
Most telling, however, is Schillings rejection of reserving hosts in a
ciborium, a practice he seems to have particularly opposed. In this
instance, the consecrated hosts were not being worshipped or employed
for purposes that were unrelated to the re-presentation of Jesus Last
Supper. Instead, the priest merely transformed them into the body of
Christ, put them into a storage container, and kept them there until
they were needed. That Schilling objected to this simple practice of
reservation is a demonstration that he possessed a principled objection
to the idea that the divine in any way could be enclosed in material
objects, even when those objects were not being worshipped or used in
any sort of liturgical practice. Although the most important form of
this containment occurred in the consecration of the host, Schillings
objection to the consecration of the water and the salt should also be
seen in this light.
Returning our attention to the subject of the balcony meal, it is
worth noting that the author of the text makes the same points as the
Augsburg Chronik and the Beschreibene Chronik about Schillings
objections to common practices involving the consecrated host. Only
in this case the author employs a symbolically charged narrative
approach. The account contrasts the meal presided over by Schilling
on the balcony with the Corpus Christi procession in the streets below.
The Corpus Christi procession represents, in its most extreme form,
the host as a sacred object to be worshipped and as a container of
divine power to be manipulated. Contrasted with veneration of the
Eucharistic host is Schillings celebration of a communal meal with
68 chapter two
nine of his companions. In this meal, there is no place for any objects
purportedly imbued with divine power. Schilling has replaced the
problematic host with a benign radish. The substitution of an object
that could not be construed as being a vessel of the divine eliminated
the possibility that a host that tended to carry with it unwanted signi-
fication would corrupt the pure meal. Indeed, if the point of contrast
were not already clear enough, and in case there were any lingering
doubts that the radish might possess a spiritual virtue, the participants
treated it in a derisive way.
This narratives structural opposition between a ritual involving a
communal meal and one involving an object that contained divine
power provides an opportunity to consider more closely the reasons
for Schillings strict rejection of such objects, and how this position
integrates with his larger socio/religious program. We have already
introduced the idea that Schilling objected to that aspect of the Catholic
tradition that emphasized the containment of the sacred in physical
objects, because it tended to enhance the power and status of the clergy
vis--vis the laity. By claiming the right to endow otherwise mundane
objects with sacrality and to distribute these beneficial objects to the
laity, the clergy established control over the laitys access to the divine
and placed themselves at an elevated level in the spiritual hierarchy.
The control of the Eucharist, the most spiritually potent object in
Christendom, was a matter of particular concern. The clergys claim
to special rights and privileges was based largely on their power to
make the body and blood of Christ present under the form of bread
and wine and to determine who would gain access to this special divine
presence.
The Corpus Christi procession, against which Schillings meal was
positioned, added a political and social dimension to the question
regarding the control of the sacred. As the procession set out, it was
conveying a clear message to the community. The political leaders
marching next to the host, and the various guilds displaying their
degree of prominence by their relative proximity to the host, claimed
legitimacy thereby for their position and their power. The host func-
tioned as a manifestation of the transcendent foundation for the secu-
lar social order, which itself was made manifest in the procession. The
instrumentalization of the consecrated host to serve the interests of the
power hierarchies in the city coincided with its role in underscoring
and defining the citys spiritual hierarchy, which privileged the clergy.
The common denominator in all of this is the containment of spiritual
virtue in objects that, because they are manageable, are prone to be

manipulated by already powerful social forces.
In contrast to a piety based on the veneration of a sacred object,
Schilling promoted a piety based on a communal meal. Or, since it
took place on the roof of a principal fraternal institution in the city, the
guild, one might call it a fraternal meal. The author of the narrative was
intending the contrast of Schillings secular meal with the spiritual
Corpus Christi procession to have a decidedly pejorative connotation.
Nevertheless, in spite of this derogatory overlay, the basic structure of
the text provides important insight into the significance of Schillings
approach towards the Eucharist. In fact, it would be fair to characterize
Schillings program as secular insofar as he advocated a leveling of rela-
tionships within society and the Christian community. For Schilling,
traditional religion with its emphasis on the sacred host and other holy
objects was hierarchical. Because of the peculiarity of the religious sys-
tem, the vertical focus on the divine presence contained in the host
contributed to a definition and legitimization of vertical or hierarchi-
cal relations within religion and society.
As opposed to a celebration with a holy object characterized by hier-
archical relationships, Schilling proposes a meal with comrades char-
acterized by horizontal, that is, egalitarian, ties. There is no sacred
object to be commandeered or controlled by some to enhance their
power or status over against others. Rather, the emphasis rests on the
fraternal relationships among the members and the dividing and shar-
ing of the meal in common purpose. One should not characterize this
meal as irreligious, but rather view it as an articulation of Schillings
religious as well as his social vision. Schillings Eucharistic theology, his
rejection of the sacred host, and his promotion of the contrasting com-
munal meal encapsulated and articulated the broadest outlines of his
agenda in Augsburg. Eucharistic practice in his congregation became a
language for expressing a common view on religious and social issues.
Schilling had keyed his congregation into the relevance of Eucharistic
belief and practice to a series of interconnected concerns affecting
their lives, as well as into the ability of Eucharistic language and ritual
to express those concerns. Schillings successor, Michael Keller, would
continue this approach of using Eucharistic speech and practice as
a way of discussing broader issues at play within his congregation. His
understanding of the relationship between Eucharistic thought
and practice and notions of hierarchy and mediation paralleled those
of Schilling. Because his views are better documented than those of
70 chapter two
Schilling, his case will serve to corroborate many of the assertions put
forward in this chapter. Keller arrived in a congregation that was
already attuned to the wider significance of Eucharistic theology and
action. That his congregation understood this message is evinced in
one of the final acts of Hans Speiser, a member of Schillings congrega-
tion who was executed on September 15, 1524, for his part in the
tumult provoked by his preachers dismissal.
Lay Communion and Rebellion: The Death of Hans Speiser
On the morning of August 6, 1524, people began to gather in front of

the city hall where the council was meeting, to demand the return of
the friar. Before long, a large crowd of an estimated 1,200 to 1,800
people was making its voice heard.63 The demonstrators chose a com-
mission of twelve or fourteen delegates, whom they sent to the city hall
to make their requests known. They were placed in a smaller room
adjoining the council hall where the councilors were meeting.64 They
chose the councilor Christoph Herwart to be their representative to
the council and to communicate the substance of their petition.65
Herwart informed the council that the people, being uncertain as to
why their preacher had been removed but suspicious that the city
clergy might have had a hand in it, humbly requested his return. If his
conduct were shown to have been improper, then they would willingly
accept his punishment, but if he were to be shown correct in his doc-
trine and preaching, then he should be allowed to continue in his
position. Further, they were concerned that the poor were being
deprived of the Word of God while the pulpit at the Franciscan church
stood empty.66
The council, after discussing the matter, sent a delegation of four
councilors, including Herwart, to give the commission its answer. The
delegation claimed that the friars superiors had recalled him for good
reasons, that he had left to engage in further study, and that he was
63
For the most extensive account of this phase of the Schilling affair, see Rogge,
Nutzen, 254282; see also Vogt, Schilling and Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 160
169. These accounts draw upon the Beschreibung, Peutingers narrative from 1524
(Vogt, Schilling, 2029), and inquisition records from the Augsburg city archive.
64
Beschreibung, 10v-11r.
65
This is recorded in Peutingers account of the events (Vogt, Schilling, 21).
66
Beschreibung, 11r11v.
therefore no longer available to preach at the Franciscan church. They

protested that they were not attempting to hinder or suppress the
Gospel, but rather to advance it. Therefore, in order that the pulpit not
be left vacant, they had decided to appoint the learned Urbanus
Rhegius as a temporary replacement for Schilling. They expressed the
expectation that the petitioners would convey their hearty thanks and
depart.67
The commission seemed willing to accept the compromise, but as
soon as the crowd outside the city hall heard that Schilling was to be
replaced by Urbanus Rhegius, they became highly agitated and began
to cry out, We want the Friar! We want the Friar! Others called out
that they wanted the friar, and nobody else.68 Still others declared that
they came for the friar, not for Urbanus Rhegius.69 Finally, some were
ready to undertake a full-scale revolt if the council did not grant their
request. One weaver reportedly said, Lets ask them one more time,
and if they refuse to give him to us, we intend to get the friar by force.
He asserted, further, that the majority supported this position.70
Following this uproar, the four current and former mayors joined
the original four-member delegation and went outside to the crowd to
persuade them to accept the installation of Urbanus Rhegius, promis-
ing that he would begin to preach that very day. Not satisfied with the
promise to provide them immediately with the preacher they did not
want at all, they continued to shout that they wanted the friar and no
other.71 Although it may represent a slightly different account of the
attempt described above by Peutinger, the Beschreibung describes a
third attempt of the councilors to convince the people to accept the
installation of Urbanus Rhegius. The Beschreibung relates that a num-
ber of protesters had pushed their way into the room housing the citi-
zens commission. The councilors (presumably all those who had
assembled) entered the room, and the former mayor Ulrich Rehlinger
treated the citizens to a discourse in which he described the fatherly
care with which the council had ruled the city; he explained that the
67
Beschreibung, 12r12v; Vogt, Schilling, 22.
68
See the report Ambres Mller and Melchior Schnieder, 4v.
69
Beschreibung, 12v.
70
Last vnns noch ain man biten. versagt man vns ine. So wollen wir den munch
mit gewalt haben, daruff ist ain merers werden (Ambres Mller Melchior Schnieder,
3r).
71
72 chapter two
friar had been removed for important reasonsalthough he went

willinglyand that the council would provide the learned Urbanus
Rhegius to the Franciscan church out of fatherly goodness. He
reminded them that the Scriptures taught that all subjects were to
demonstrate proper obedience at all times to their divinely appointed
magistrates, and he admonished them to display greater obedience by
gratefully accepting Rhegius instead of Schilling. Again, some in the
citizens commission were inclined to accept the offer, but others
objected vehemently. One man stood up on a bench in the room and
demanded to know why the councilors were calling Schilling unlearned
when he preached the word of God so biblically. He suggested that
something nefarious was behind their actions (es mu ein anders
darhinden stekhen) and that the council wanted to forbid the word of
God in the city. Meanwhile, outside the city hall, the crowd continued
to call boisterously for Schilling.72 Faced with continued opposition to
its authority, the council withdrew to its chamber to discuss its further
course of action.
At this point, both within the council chamber and on the street,
order was tenuous. The level of fear had risen palpably within the
chamber, and the councilors began to exchange mutual recrimina-
tions. It was apparently the experienced, clear-thinking Konrad
Peutinger who was able to calm the council members down and refo-
cus them on resolving the matter at hand.
Meanwhile, eager to take advantage of their current strength, cer-
tain people on the street were suggesting that they expand their
demands beyond the return of Schilling. Some wanted to split the
group up into thirds and have each take a turn descending on a mon-
astery in the city, demanding to be fed a meal, perhaps intending to
expose the hypocrisy of those institutions that were supposed to prac-
tice charity. Others wanted to petition for the release of a certain fur-
rier who had been in prison for a long time.73 At least one weaver
wanted to use the occasion to change the leadership within his guild.
72
Beschreibung, 14r16r.
73
Beschreibung, 17r1v. This refers to the case of Bartholomus Rem. Rem was ap-
parently condemned to life in prison for attempting to beat his wife to death over
suspected adulterous relationships and for threatening to kill the mayor, Ambrosius
Hchstetter, with whom he was in a dispute over an investment return Hchstetter was
refusing to pay him. These actions may not have been unrelated, for his wife was said
to have slept with two mayors. On this case, see Rem, Cronica, 207; Roth,
Reformationsgeschichte, 185, n. 37; Sender, Chrionik, 146149.
Believing the powerful but unpopular guild master and council mem-
ber Antoni Bimel to be behind Schillings removal, he declared that
they wanted to dismiss Bimel, just as Bimel had dismissed the friar.74
There were also darker plots afoot that did not come to light until days
later. Fortunately for the council, moderate voices, who decided to
limit their demands to the return of Schilling, prevailed.
Meanwhile, the councilors had resolved that the only way to avoid
further escalation of the problem was to accede to the crowds demands
and then to regain the political upper hand after it had dispersed.
Accordingly, they announced early that afternoon that the friar would
return, and that he would be ready on Tuesday morning (August 9) to
preach his 7:00 sermon. Some raised their hands in joy and thanked
the council. Ominously, others seemed disappointed that the matter
had ended so peacefully.75 As they were leaving, some threatened
to return on Tuesday morning if Schilling had not reappeared. Others
demanded from the city council an assurance that they would not
be punished for the days events. Peutinger told them that insofar as
they had conducted themselves in good faith, the council would inter-
pret their actions in the same spirit. This may not have provided the
level of assurance some were looking for, but the crowd dispersed
nonetheless.
Quickly, the council attempted to locate Schilling. They brought
before them a former companion of Schillings, who indicated that he
might be able to find the man. The council sent him out with some oth-
ers to bring Schilling back. Then, they turned to the issue of security.
It was imperative that the council prevent another such gathering and
uncover any plots against its members. During the next few days, they
secretly moved weapons into the city hall and instructed the city sol-
diers and guards to be on special alert for suspicious activity.
When the morning of August 12 arrived and Schilling had not yet
returned, the council, fearing a more violent repeat of the events on
August 9, implemented its emergency plan. It sent soldiers and guards
to secure strategic points in the city and to patrol the streets. It also
dispatched the intrepid Rhegius to the Franciscan church to preach the
morning sermon. This, Rhegius first sermon at the Franciscan church,
was a total disaster; it is not at all clear what the council thought it was
74
See the interrogation records of Ambres Mller and Melchior Schnieder, 2r.
75
Souil ich aber erfaren, so seind in disem handel der guetherzigen nicht souil als
der anderen gewesen (Beschreibung, 19r19v).
74 chapter two
doing by sending him there. As soon as the people realized that instead
of Schilling, Rhegius would be preaching the sermon, they let out
a tremendous cry as if the city were on fire, and ran out of the church,
leaving Rhegius alone.76 The council issued an edict to be proclaimed
throughout the city forbidding all gatherings, whether public or pri-
vate, and declaring that no one was permitted to say anything or engage
in any activity that led to disunity, strife, disobedience, or revolt.
Finally, it summoned all members of the large council, consisting
of the guild masters and twelve representatives from each guild in
addition to the members of the small council, to assemble at the city
hall at 1:00 P.M.in armor, with weapons in hand. It explained the
gravity of the situation and solicited a pledge of their support, an
act that the large council willingly agreed to perform.77 The day was
filled with rumors that the uprising had commenced. Shop owners
closed their doors, and much of the clergy and some of the wealthy
left town. Finally, when at about 7:00 P.M. Schilling reappeared, ten-
sions subsided.78 The city council was still unwilling to let down its
guard, however, and, according to Peutinger, hired 636 guildsmen
and others who had not participated in the gathering on August 6 to
patrol the city.79
In fact, although no uprising materialized, the city council was wise
to be wary. The population had just won a victory over the city council,
and some people were hoping to press their advantage. The weaver
Peter Otter claimed that he had organized a large number of co-
conspirators to overthrow the government. They had planned to
begintheir uprising when the city council refused to promise the pro-
testers the return of the friar. At that moment, the conspirators were to
enter the city hall and stab the councilors to death. Then, Otter alleg-
edly claimed that he had 200 weavers ready to storm the armory on his
signal. When the city council promised to reinstate Schilling, Otter
76
Beschreibung, 23r.
77
As to why the large council was so compliant, many of the members of the large
council had been present outside the city hall on August 6 and were eager to disassoci-
ate themselves from much of what took place there. Further, Rogge argues that the city
council, by frequently involving the large council in the political process, was creating
an institution of subservient middle-class public opinion independent of the guilds
(Rogge, Nutzen, 244).
78
Beschreibung, 33r.
79
and his companions were forced to abandon their plans. Nevertheless,

Otter was heard boasting that if it had not been so late in the day, he
still could have put his plan into effect.80
It appears from others remarks, however, that these were the bitter
words of a man who saw a golden opportunity slip through his fingers.
Some time later, a group of comrades were gathered together at a table
lamenting their failure to implement their plan when they had the
chance. They admitted to each other that they had made a mistake by
not following the plan to storm the armory.81 They were aware that the
city councils adroit response to the situation had deprived them of a
rallying point and had caused the movement to disband long enough
for the council to reassert control over the city.82
In spite of this disappointing setback, plans were underway to rein-
vigorate the movement to press the council to effect political and eco-
nomic change in the city. There exists evidence that Schilling himself
was motivating people to recommit to the drive for reform that he had
originally helped to ignite. Apparently a heated discussion among sup-
porters of Schilling broke out with Schilling present while they were all
gathered at the St. Ulrich preaching house. They concluded that the
commune should go before the council again with its program.
However, this time it should act in such a way that the council would
not be able to thwart it. Furthermore, during the discussion, Schilling
voiced his displeasure with the councilors, claiming that they had
acted severely towards him and had treated him unjustly, and everyone
agreed.83 Schilling would remain in the city until November 9. He was
closely watched, however, and would have reserved any incendiary talk
for private conversations.
The discussions finally coalesced into a program in the home of a
mason with the last name of Has. The leaders in the formulation of the
program were the two weavers Hans Kag (or Kager) and Hans Speiser,
80
Ambres Mller Melchior Schnieder, 2v, 6r.
81
Ibid., 7v.
82
The rising and eventually dissipating alarm of the city council over the uprising is
most clearly seen in councils account books for 1524. The day after Schillings return
(August 13), the council paid for 32 soldiers to keep watch at night. As plots were un-
covered, that number spiked to 144 on August 20. By the end of the month, the
number would decrease to 77. The council gradually diminished the number of hired
soldiers on night watch until, by the end of October, they were no longer considered
necessary (StAA Baumeisterbuch 118 [1524], 51r-52v).
83
See the interrogation record of Leonhardt Knoringer, Oct. 13, 1524, 2r-3v.
76 chapter two
and the furrier Paul Kissinger.84 Nine of the twelve articles that emerged
from the meeting survive. They reflect the religious and social priori-
ties Schilling had articulated in his sermons.85 The conspirators
intended to share their list of demands with sympathetic persons in
order to build support for an eventual return to the city hall. Some of
this dissemination surely occurred by word of mouth. The demands
were also written down on paper and shown to interested parties. The
unknown articles, as Vogt suggests, may have been the most radical.
Perhaps they were simply too sensitive to commit to writing.
There is no proof that Schilling was directly involved in the drafting
of the twelve articles. Further, while we can directly associate none of
the four named individuals associated with the composition of the
articles with Schilling, this is surely the case only because of a lack of
extant documentation. Has, at whose house the articles were drafted,
can, however, be linked directly to Leonhard Knoringer, a documented
supporter of Schilling. Knoringer was present for the discussion at the
St. Ulrich preaching house with Schilling over the need to return to the
city council with their demands. Knoringer reports a conversation that
he had with Has over the city councils unjust treatment of Has and
others, including Hans Speiser, who had recently been executed (on
September 15).86
All of these individuals were likely part of a radicalized group within
the congregation at the Franciscan church, associates of Schillings
84
See the interrogation record of Leonhardt Knoringer, Oct. 8, 1524, 1v, and the
report, Ambres Mller Melchior Schnieder, 8r. Georg Preu describes Speiser as being
a 58 years old man of little means, who was pious and Evangelical. He was married
with no children. Kag was 68 and also poor (Georg Preu, Die Chronik des Augsburger
Malers Georg Preu des lteren. 15121516, in Die Chroniken der deutschen Stdte
vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert), vol. 29 (Die Chroniken der schwbischen Stdte:
Augsburg. vol. 6), edited by Karl von Hegel [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1966], 32).
85
For a list of the nine articles, see Vogt, Schilling, 19. The list in the report
Ambres Mller Melchior Schnieder (8r) does not include the ninth and final demand
transcribed by Vogt, wo ynen das von ainem rhat nit zugebn worden wer, so wolten
sy solchs mit gwalt gehabt habn. Vogts source for this ninth article is unclear. That the
authors of the articles would resort to violence, however, is not in doubt. This demand
is not included in the Leser list either (see note 43 above). If the Leser article de-
manding the abolition of the excise tax on wine is included, then nine of the twelve
articles can be documented. If Vogts unverified article on the use of violence is in-
cluded, the number of known articles reaches ten.
86
See the interrogation record of Leonhardt Knoringer, Oct. 13, 1524, 1v. Has even-
tually escaped from the city to avoid arrest. Speisers execution will be discussed in
detail below.
who were intent on implementing the religious and social vision that
he articulated. Articles number one, four, and seven concern issues of
the clergy. The first article states that, They want the two doctors,
at the cathedral and at the Dominican friary, to leave the city.87 This
article refers to the preachers and defenders of traditional religion
Matthias Kretz and Johann Faber, respectively, both of whom had by
1524 earned the animosity of many in Augsburg for the position they
took on religious issues.88 A condemnation of such clergy formed an
important component of Schillings program of combating elites and
hierarchies that, they charged, sought to control the lives of people.
The other two anti-clerical articles touch on the power of the clergy
in the economic sphere. They are Fourth, that the priests should not
be given any more ground rents and Eighth, that the priests should
pay taxes and excise taxes.89 These articles criticize both the authority
of the clergy over the laity and the special privileges they received due
to their elevated spiritual status. Schillings supporters were committed
to eliminating all distinctions and refuting all claims that might be
used by the clergy to exercise control over their lives.
The reference to ground rents must be explained in terms of the
forms of lordship common in the region around Augsburg, and in
Swabia in general, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The most
common form of lordship in the area was Grundherrschaft, a system
whereby parcels of land were rented out to tenants by the landlord, the
Grundherr, in exchange for an annual ground rent, or Grundzins,
tithes, and taxes. The renters were, in turn, entitled, for a fee, to pass on
the property to their heirs, and to divide the property.90 This form of
lordship was conceptually and legally separate from judicial authority
exercised by a person or corporation invested with Gerichtsherrschaft,
although in any particular instance these two forms of lordship
mightwell have been exercised by the same lord. The other forms of
lordshipGutsherrschaft, which combined control over both land and
87
Erstlich die 2 doctores zu unser lieben frauen und prediger haben sie aus der stat
haben wollen (Vogt, Schilling, 19).
88
On these two men, see Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 9495, 129130.
89
Zum 4. das man den pfaffen kein grundzins mer geben sollZum 8. das die
pfaffen steur und ungelt geben solten (Vogt, Schilling, 19).
90
Martha White Paas, Population Change, Labor Supply, and Agriculture in Augsburg
14801618 (hereafter White Paas, Population), Dissertations in Economic History
(New York: Arno Press, 1981), 82, 104.
78 chapter two
persons, and Leibherrschaft, which consisted of control over persons

were uncommon in Swabia during the sixteenth century.91 Into the fif-
teenth century, large amounts of territory in the vicinity of Augsburg
were under both the Gerichtsherrschaft and Grundherrschaft of the
bishop of Augsburg and other ecclesiastical institutions within the city.
Although Augsburg patricians acquired Grundherrschaft and/or
Gerichtsherrschaft over extensive tracts of ecclesiastical land in the fif-
teenth and sixteenth centuries, the ecclesiastical control over the land
and its occupants remained considerable.92
The church was also a powerful landlord within the city walls, own-
ing dwellings and gardens, which it rented out to tenants. The council,
beginning in the fourteenth century and increasing its efforts in the
fifteenth century, attempted to limit the amount of city property willed
to the church, since in most cases such transfers made the property tax
exempt. Although the council had considerable success in slowing the
rate of the transfers, it was unable to scale back the portion of property
the church owned in the city. The terms of the leases were similar to
those in the countryside. The renters were granted a hereditary lease
and were allowed to divide the land.93 It is likely that many members of
the Franciscan church congregation paid ground rents to an ecclesias-
tical institution as their Grundherr.94 Further, it is evident from the
demand that this practice be abolished that they resented it. Probably
they were uncomfortable with the level of power concentrated in the
hands of the clergy, who acted as both their spiritual lords and, in a
limited capacity, as their temporal lords. To reduce such centers of
accumulated power, it was necessary to undermine the level of control
they exercised over the lives of the people. Further, there may also have
been a sense that the clergy exploited their spiritual status for unjust
financial profit. They alone were allowed to benefit from property they
owned by renting it out without contributing to the well-being of the
city by paying taxes on it.
This desire not to concede to the clergy any privileges that would
validate their elevation over the laity is reflected in the demand that the
clergy be forced to pay taxes and excise taxes, from which they were, in
91
Ibid., 8283.
92
Ibid., 8487.
93
Ibid., 104.
94
For example, the monastery of St. Ulrich and Afra owned approximately ninety
houses in its parish, many of which it presumably rented out (Leibhart, Stifte, 195.)
principle, exempt. As in the case of property transfers to the church,

the city council attempted to limit the level of exemption among the
clergy, with varying degrees of success. The city council generally suc-
ceeded in requiring clergy to pay excise taxes on items they intended
to use in business ventures, but not on items intended for private con-
sumption. It also largely succeeded in requiring the clergy to pay the
road tax, but was less successful in forcing them to pay property taxes
or head taxes.95 The clergys partially tax-exempt status continued to
function as a clear signal of clergy members exalted spiritual status,
since it was on this basis they claimed the right to be exempt from civil
obligations.
Articles five and six, advocating the abolition of trading firms and
excise taxes, were aimed at the economic as opposed to the spiritual
elite. The issues involved have already been discussed above. These
articles reflected a desire among the petitioners to limit the control of
economic elites over their livelihood and prevent them from manipu-
lating the political system to their own advantage. An unmistakably
menacing tone pervades the entire list. The ninth article only makes
explicit the threat underlying all the articles, that if the council did not
accede to the demands, the commune would seek to obtain them by
force. Peter Beringer had earlier asked the question whether the com-
mune was greater than the council. Although the question was largely
rhetorical, many still may have had their doubts whether the popula-
tion could assert its will against the city council. Those doubts tempo-
rarily evaporated in light of the events of August 6. One jubilant
protester declared, We have thrust the devil down and have the monk
[back]. The commune [actually] is greater than the city council!96 The
city council was suspected both of protecting the rights only of the
economic and spiritual elite and of perpetuating its own power with-
out regard for the traditional rights of political participation within the
city. The entire list of demands constituted a challenge to the political
elites to cease controlling the political process to their own advantage
and that of the other privileged groups in the city.
The city council took Hans Kag and Hans Speiser prisoner
on September 13, and had them interrogated under torture. They
95
For a discussion of this issue, see Kieling, Gesellschaft, 7383.
96
Wir habn den teufl vnnder sich truckt, vnnd habn den munch ain gemain ist
mer dann ain Rath (see the report Ambres Mller and Melchior Schnieder, 8r).
80 chapter two
admitted their involvement in the affair and were condemned to

death.97 The verdict against Kag charged him with violating the public
peace, blasphemy, insulting the city council, and inciting revolt.98 Only
two days later, on September 15, they were executed. Extensive precau-
tions were taken to ensure that the executions did not provoke another
uprising. The executions were planned to take place early in the morn-
ing. Further, they were unannounced and were not accompanied by
the normal ringing of the storm bells. Encircled by city military offi-
cials was an area strewn with sand, to which the men were brought in
one by one.
Speiser seems to have been the more coherent and resistant of the
two. Kag, for his part, had been so heavily tortured that he could hardly
speak. At 68 he was, for the time, an old man. It is not surprising that
he did not hold up well under the circumstances. Apparently he was
not informed beforehand that he would be executed that morning.
Even if he had expected to be executed eventually, he was probably not
anticipating such a swift process. When he arrived on the square, he
asked what they intended to do with him. When the executioner
informed that him that he was about to die, all the strength went out of
him. He sunk down on his knees on the sand and was beheaded.99
Nevertheless, according to Rem, he managed to express the view that
he was being unjustly treated.100 Rem reports that Speiser, the first one
to be executed, was openly defiant. He also asked what they intended
to do with him, and was told that he was going to be executed. He
declared that the council was treating him unjustly, that he was dying
for the sake of Gods Word, and that he would die willingly.101
This picture from Preus chronicle of Speisers defiance contrasted
with Kags resignation appears also in Senders account of their final
communion. The continuity of both narratives in this respect suggests
their veracity. The two men must have had some inkling that the end
was near, for on the morning of the fifteenth, while they were still in
chains, a priest quietly came before them, said the mass, and offered
them communion under one kind. According to Sender, Kag received
97
Paul Kissinger was also captured at this time and beaten out of the city with rods
for his involvement in the Schilling affair.
98
See the transcript of the verdict against him in Vogt, Schilling, 20.
99
Preu, Chronik, 32.
100
Rem, Cronica, 208.
101
Ibid.
it with devotion. Speiser refused to take it unless he was offered com-

munion under both kinds. However, since the city council refused to
allow these conditions to be fulfilled, he died without receiving
communion.102
Johannes Frosch had distributed communion under both kinds to
certain individuals in 1524, and together with Urbanus Rhegius, he
distributed both kinds in a public ceremony for the first time at
Christmas, 1525. The Eucharist was also distributed in both kinds in
the Franciscan church during 1524, although it is not clear under what
circumstances.103 Speiser already would have been introduced to the
concept of communion under both kinds and its significance, and
even may have received both the bread and the wine on some occasion.
His decision to forego final communion rather than receive only the
host was a momentous one, given the perilous condition of his soul at
that moment. With the weight of hundreds of years of tradition, the
massive authority of the church, an unsympathetic city council, and
looming death pressing on him, his refusal constituted a bold affirma-
tion of the justice of his cause, an assertion he would later restate
verbally.
By putting a condition on the reception of the Eucharist, Speiser was
declaring that the reception of the holy object was not essential to his
spiritual well-being. This declaration relativized the significance of the
priest, who was believed to imbue the object with sacred power. If the
object was dispensable, so was the priest. He could not lay claim to any
power necessary for the laity to gain access to the divine. He was there-
fore denied his authority to mediate or control entrance to the spiritual
realm. Speiser was asserting the independence and dignity of the laity
vis--vis the religious elite, a central tenet of Schillings ideology.
Further, by asking to receive the exact same elements that the clergy
received, Speiser was attempting to erase the mark of differentiation
between himself and the clergy. As will be discussed further in the next
chapter, many members of the laity understood that to regain access to
the chalice was to attain fundamental equality with the clergy. It repu-
diated the clergys assertion of the right to control the laitys access to
the elements, a right which the laity believed the clergy used to its own
advantage.
102
103
Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, 140141, n. 35.
82 chapter two
Speisers refusal to receive the Eucharist under one kind can plausi-
bly be considered an affirmation of the entire program for which he
was condemned, because a common horizontalizing programinformed
the religious, political, and economic components of the movement.
At all levels, Speiser, Schilling, and those like them opposed the way
that elites controlled access to spiritual, political, and economic power
in the city through a system of interlocking relations and ideas. An
attack on one aspect of this system of hierarchies constituted an attack
on the whole system.
For this reason, their position on the Eucharist was able to stand for
their position on a variety of other interrelated concerns, where the
point at issue was the same. The Eucharist, standing as it did at the
center of medieval culture, had heavy layers of meaning inscribed onto
it as groups battled to claim its symbolic and spiritual power for their
own cause. Schilling and his followers followed in this tradition of
fighting expansive battles on the symbolic field of the Eucharist.
Schilling had helped raise his congregations awareness of the ways in
which taking a position on a question regarding the Eucharist could
also refer to and impact a series of other significant issues. This level of
symbolic sophistication should be kept clearly in mind as we now turn
to Johann Schillings successor, Michael Keller, and to his program to
sharpen the appeal of his Evangelical message through his particular
interpretation of the Eucharist.
CHAPTER THREE
MICHAEL KELLER: THE BUILDER OF THE

SACRAMENTARIAN CHURCH IN AUGSBURG
Michael Keller arrived in Augsburg in November 1524, a pivotal time

in the citys socio-religious history. The last conspirators in the August
uprising had been recently rounded up and punished, although the
shock waves of the event were still reverberating through the commu-
nity. The intra-Evangelical controversies over the Eucharist had just
penetrated the walls of the city and were already displaying the ability
to harness sentiments of discontent and to further fragment the city
along religious lines. Finally, the city council was taking some initial,
tentative steps to foster the Reformation in the city. Keller would dis-
play extraordinary effectiveness in using these developments to create
the largest and most powerful church congregation in the Augsburg.
Kellers Preparation for the Eucharistic Conflicts
Michael Keller (latinized Cellarius) was born sometime before 1500 in

the market town of Burgheim in a region under joint Palatinate-
Wittelsbach sovereignty.1 His mother remained a resident there, but we
know nothing of his father. Keller apparently studied at the University
of Leipzig in 1517, where he claims to have attained the degree of
Master of Arts, although there is no record that a Michael Keller
matriculated there. Sometime after this period, he became a chap-
lain in the Bavarian town of Wasserburg. Here, his preaching began
to reflect the influence of the Evangelical movement.2 As a result, he
was forced to travel to Munich to justify himself to a commission
1
On Keller, see Khler, Zwingli, passim; Roth, Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 1, 1517
1530, vol. 2, 15311537 bezw. 1540, passim; Friedrich Roth, Zur Lebensgeschichte des
Meisters Michael Keller Prdikanten in Augsburg (hereafter Roth, Keller), in
Beitrge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 5 (1899): 149163; Wolfgang Zorn, Michael
Keller (vor 15001548) (hereafter Zorn, Michael Keller), in Lebensbilder aus dem
Bayerischen Schwaben, vol. 7, ed. Gtz Freiherrn von Plnitz (Munich: Max Hueber
Verlag, 1959), 161172.
2
Zorn, Michael Keller, 162.
84 chapter three
composed of Duke Wilhelm of Bavarias councilors and clergy. After

his hearing, he was permitted to return to Wasserburg but forbidden to
preach. The following weeks were ones of profound inner turmoil for
Keller, whose conscience no longer permitted him to remain under the
prevailing conditions of his life, as he was celebrating the mass, keep-
ing quiet about the the Word of God, the unconquerable truth, and
still living with his concubine. Further, his congregation in Wasserburg
had already begun to visit him, asking to be instructed in the Holy
Scriptures. Keller knew that if he did not turn them away, his enemies,
the priests, would soon see to it that he was sent back to Munich. Keller
decided that the only way out of this spiritually and physically perilous
situation was to leave town.3
Therefore, in the summer of 1524 he sought and received permis-
sion from the dukes council to leave the territory to attend a university
where the Scripture was taught, perhaps Leipzig.4 Keller instead wound
his way to Prague, where he spent each day for almost a month in the
synagogues learning from the Jews their secrets about the Scriptures,
but also hearing how they misunderstood the Scripture and the
Prophets. He also gained experience with other sorts of erring sects.5
3
Roth transcribes a letter of Keller to the Augsburg city council dated August 13,
1527. In it, Keller answers the charges leveled against him that he had defamed the
Duke of Bavaria and violated an oath that he had sworn to him. Nachdem und ich
aber gott treulich anrufft, er sol mich armen snder aus disem unordentlichem leben
(als oben gesagt ist)me halten, das wort gottes, die unuberwintlich warhait versch-
weigen, mit concubinen hausenerlesen und mein arm elendt gewissen von disem
greul freimachen durch sein genadt, das er dann nach langem hitzigem gepett vetter-
lich thon hatt, mir muth und sinn geben, solch greul und seelmrdung blos und nag-
ket zuverlassen, auch darneben angesehen den grossen schaden der frommen
Wasserburger, der inen mit sampt mir au meiner lenger erharrung erwachsen wer,
dann sie hetten den geschmagk des wort gottes ain wenig entpfangen darnach sie dann
noch hitziger wurden; so wst ich, so ich dar belib, so wrden sie mich hin und her
laden oder mit landtschafften mich in meiner behausung und pfrundthau haim-
suchen alle tag, wie sie schon angefangen hetten und nichs dest weniger bericht der
heiligen schrift haben wllen; hett ichs inen nicht abschlagen mgen, so hett das
gefolgt, da ich auffs allernechst widerumb gien Minichen gefordert wer worden dann
dozumal mein mitgenossen, die pfaffen waren mir abgonstig von des wort gottes
wegen, und die lettsten ding umb mich erger worden dann die erste. die [sic] von
Wasserburg aber, mein geliebste frndt und brder im herren, weren von sollicher
meiner haimsuchung des worts halben gro gestrafft worden, dann ain vermglich
volgk daselbist ist (Roth, Keller, 158159).
4
Ibid., 152, 159.
5
Ibid., 160. Any trace of this extraordinary month-long experience in the syna-
gogues of Prague, in terms of displaying interest in the Kabala or numerology
(the so-called secrets of the Scriptures), or entering into dialogue with Jewish posi-
tions on Christian doctrines or Jewish interpretations of particular Scriptural texts, is
michael keller 85
At the urging of some masters and students from Wittenberg, whose

acquaintance Keller had made, he followed them to Wittenberg to see
how Martin Luther treated his own people, and to determine what he
taught according to the Scriptures. Keller remained in Wittenberg
through the fall of 1524 without matriculating, perhaps because
Bavarian subjects were forbidden to do so.6 While there, he contracted
a fever, which seems to have played a part in his desire to leave. In addi-
tion to this, Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria became aware that Keller was
attending the heretic university. Keller left Wittenberg apparently
without having made personal acquaintance with any of the principal
reformers active there.
It is likely, however, that he was aware of the dispute raging between
Luther and his colleague at the university, Andreas Bodenstein von
Karlstadt. Disagreement between the two men had first erupted during
Luthers stay at the Wartburg (May 1521 to March 1522). During
Luthers absence, Karlstadt had been forcefully preaching about the
need to speed up the pace of reform in Wittenberg. His demands for
the removal of images and the radical alteration of the mass played an
important part not only in the decision of students and townspeople to
disrupt masses, harass conservative clergy, and destroy images and
altars in the city church, but also in the establishment by the city coun-
cil of a new ordinance regulating religious life. According to this ordi-
nance, the broad form of the mass would be retained for the sake of the
weak. However, all references to the saints and to sacrifice as well as the
entire canon were to be omitted. Moreover, communicants were to be
allowed to take the bread in their own hands and feed themselves
(communion in both kinds being presupposed). Further, provision
was made for the removal of all images and all but three altars from the
city church.7 When it became clear that the elector would not sanction
such changes, support for the program in the university and the city
entirely absent from Kellers writing. There could, however, be a resonance from this
time in Kellers Eucharistic theology. Since the fourteenth century, arguments against
transubstantiation and the Real Presence generally had been common in Jewish
polemical works (Miri Rubin, Gentile Tales: The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval
Jews [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999], 9395). If debate veered to this topic, it
is possible that his Jewish interlocutors planted seeds of doubt in Kellers mind.
6
Zorn, Michael Keller, 162.
7
James S. Preus, Carlstadts Ordinaciones and Luthers Liberty: A Study of the
Wittenberg Movement 15211522, Harvard Theological Studies 26 (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1974), 34.
86 chapter three
council evaporated. Blame for the disturbances and changes were laid
at the feet of Karlstadt, who was left largely alone to defend the reform-
ers record of the past six months.8
He did so in the February 1522 tract, Bit und vermanung an Doctor
Ochssenfart. In this writing he defended the actions of the Wittenbergers
based on the authority of Scripture, which alone can arbitrate the
validity of a position. Further, he argued that it was not his Evangelical
mass, but Ochsenfarts traditional mass that caused offense to the com-
mon people and hindered their faith.
Karlstadts treatise, Predig oder homilien uber den propheten
Malachiam gnant, also published in February 1522, makes clear what
was at stake for him in the Wittenberg reforms. The sermon laid out a
vision for a lay apostolate composed of simple, unlearned men, like the
prophet Malachi, who proclaim the word of God, especially, but not
exclusively, within their households. His program to dismember the
system that claimed to mediate the divine to the laity, whether through
the saints or the sacrifice of the mass, served a larger goal of capacitat-
ing the laity to act competently in matters of religion.9
Luthers return to Wittenberg on March 6 and his preaching of the
eight Invocavit sermons from March 9 to 16 spelled the end for
Karlstadts reform efforts in Wittenberg. The Wittenberg Ordinances
were rescinded; images were to be restored, communion would be of-
fered only in one kind, and a full return of the mass would be effected.10
At stake for Luther, in addition to the need to reassert control over his
movement, was not the Evangelical nature of the reforms; of that there
was no debate. Rather, he was concerned that the compulsory quality
of these reforms restricted Evangelical freedom, damaged weak con-
sciences, and focused overly on external matters to the neglect of faith
and love.
Karlstadt continued to be forbidden to preach in the city church, a
condition imposed on him in February. Then a university committee,
recently set up to police faculty members writings, confiscated and
destroyed a tract by Karlstadt already in the process of publication. Its
defense of the reformed mass, the elimination of the required pre-
communion confession, and the abolition of images was considered
8
Ibid., 4546.
9
Ibid., 4950.
10
Ibid., 70.
michael keller 87
harmful to the Evangelical cause and the good name of the city and the
university.
In the year 1523, Karlstadt increasingly withdrew from his duties at
the university and as the archdeacon of the All Saints Foundation. He
took to working on his farm in Wrlitz, and in May of that year agreed
with the citizens of Orlamnde that he would take charge of the pasto-
ral duties there. He was already archdeacon of Orlamnde, but the pas-
toral duties were performed by a vicar. Therefore, his legal status in
Orlamnde remained unclear. In his new parish he picked up again the
reform efforts that had been thwarted in Wittenberg in 1522. Images
were removed, the mass was altered, infants were not baptized, and he
was accused of neglecting the Lords Supper. He turned increasingly to
the Mosaic law and German mysticism for inspiration. Moreover, he
circumvented the press controls he faced in Wittenberg by having
books published in Jena. Luther became aware of these activities in
early 1524, concluding that he was an enemy and betrayer of Christ. By
summer he was identifying Karlstadt with the violent and revolution-
ary Thomas Mntzer.11
It was in this general time frame that Michael Keller arrived on the
scene. Karlstadt was only in Wittenberg once during Kellers stay there,
in mid-August when he came to town to resign his archdeaconate. It is
therefore highly unlikely that Keller made Karlstadts acquaintance.
Luther himself was gone during the later part of August on a preaching
tour in Thuringia. Its purpose was to refute radical preachers, many of
whom were supporters of Karlstadt. After bitter exchanges with
Karlstadt supporters, an unamicable personal encounter between the
two men, and a hostile exchange between Luther and Karlstadts
Orlamnde congregation, Luthers feelings of animosity towards
Karlstadt and his followers reached a peak. Patience with Karlstadt in
the electoral court had also run out. On September 18, he was ordered
to be expelled from electoral Saxony. Other pastors who supported
Karlstadt were forced to either cease their reforming efforts or face
expulsion themselves. By October, Karlstadt and his supporters were
complaining loudly and bitterly that Luther had mercilessly driven
Karlstadt out of Wittenberg without a hearing.
Keller could not have remained unaware of the raging conflict.
Further, the lack in his writings of the customary deferential remarks
11
Brecht, Reformation, 159.
88 chapter three
towards Luther and his decision to leave Wittenberg only a few months
after he had arrived signal that he may have become quickly disillu-
sioned with Luther and the Wittenberg reformation. (We will recall
that Keller had gone to Wittenberg in part to see wie es Martinus
Luther mit den seinen halt). It may also help explain why, despite his
stay in Wittenberg, he showed no inclination to support the Wittenberg
theologians understanding of the Eucharist.
The extent to which Karlstadts ideas reached or influenced Keller
while he was in Wittenberg cannot be established with precision. It is
clear, however, that Karlstadts approach, which involved supporting
and identifying with the laity (and the non-powerful laity in particu-
lar) while eschewing social-revolutionary agitation, was to be mirrored
in Kellers ministry in Augsburg. Both rejected the dangerous revolu-
tionary model presented to them, in Karlstadts case by his friend
Thomas Mntzer,12 and in Kellers case by his predecessor in the pulpit
of the Franciscan church in Augsburg, Johann Schilling. It is further
noteworthy that Keller, a priest, left Wittenberg with the intention of
entering a trade so that he could earn his living through manual labor.13
Karlstadt also was experimenting during this period with manual
labor on his farm as a way of repudiating his clerical distinctiveness.
Both Keller and Karlstadt sought to blur the distinction between cleri-
cal and lay and generally to dismantle rituals, traditions, and doctrines
that put the religious destiny of the laity in the hands of the clergy. The
fight of both men for a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist must
be seen in this light.
On November 23, 1524, Keller arrived in Augsburg and quickly
made his way to the home of Urbanus Rhegius. Rhegius had recently
been appointed to the position of preacher at the Franciscan church,
taking over the post of the recently departed friar Johann Schilling.
Rhegius had been renamed the temporary preacher as an attempt on
the part of the city council to appease the congregation who had, on
November 9, lost its beloved preacher for a second time. After Rhegius
prior experience with the congregation on August 9, it is a wonder that
he was willing to return to that environment at all.14
12
Thomas Mntzer, Thomas Mntzer Schriften und Briefe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe,
ed. Gnther Franz (Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968), no. 56, 415416.
13
dann auff den herbstich widerumb herau zog, des willens mich etwa in ainen
handel zuschigken, mein brot au dem schwais meines angesicht zusuchen (Roth,
Keller, 160).
14
See chapter two.
michael keller 89
Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that Keller found him at the end of
November hoarse and unable to fulfill his duties there. Rhegius
suggested that Keller, who had just arrived from Wittenberg, fill in for
him while he was incapacitated. Soon afterwards, the city council
installed Keller as the permanent preacher in the Franciscan church.15
Rhegius, for his part, was moved on to a preaching position at the
church of St. Anna, where he, along with Stephan Agricola and Johann
Frosch, would turn the church into a bastion of Luthern sacramental
theology.
The city council had never considered Rhegius position at the
Franciscan church as permanent. It had informed the crowd on
August 6 that Rhegius would only remain until a replacement from the
Franciscan order could be found.16 Clearly, the encounter between
Rhegius and the congregation might very well have poisoned the
waters, hindering a future productive relationship. Finally, Keller was
an ideal match for this restive church, satisfying both the congregation
and the city council. Keller was a dynamic and populist preacher who
appealed to the low-status, disenfranchised crowds that came to the
sermons. Yet he did not push a social-revolutionary agenda or seek to
exacerbate class struggles. This appealed to a city council that was
eager to relax tensions in the city. Rhegius, on the other hand, was sus-
pected of being a preacher for the merchant class and a favorite of the
city council, unsympathetic to the concerns of the common man.17
The Growth of Early Sacramentarianism in Augsburg, 1524
When exactly Keller adopted a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist

is not entirely clear. However, evidence shows that the sacramentarian
view was already gaining ground in Augsburg by the end of 1524.
It would be reasonable to presume that Keller came to such an under-
standing approximately in this period. Urbanus Rhegius had been
aware since November of Karlstadts sacramentarian pamphlets, which
had been published around the end of October.18 Sometime already
15
Roth, Keller, 153.
16
StAA Ratsbcher 8, 230.
17
Hellmut Zschoch, Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle Identitt: Urbanus
Rhegius als evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530 (hereafter Zschoch,
Urbanus Rhegius), Beitrge zur Historischen Theologie 88 (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1995) 100, 112113.
18
Zschoch, Urbanus Rhegius, 168.
90 chapter three
before the end of 1524 Rhegius had published a refutation of the sacra-
mentarian ideas of Karlstadt in Wider den newen irrsal Doctor Andreas
von Karlstadt des Sakraments halben Warnung.19
At the time of writing, Rhegius was only aware of two of the five
pamphlets that Karlstadt had to that point published on the Eucharist.20
Of those two pamphlets, one of them was certainly Von dem wider-
christlichen Mibrauch des Herren Brot und Kelch, published in
Augsburg (as well as in Basel and Nuremberg) in 1524.21 It is highly
likely that the other pamphlet was Dialogus oder ein Gesprchbuchlein:
Von dem greulichen, abgttischen Mibrauch des hochwrdigsten
Sakraments Jesu Christi, published in Basel and Bamberg in 1524 and
Strasbourg in 1525.22 Rhegius summarizes the three main points con-
tained in the two tracts as follows: the sacraments do not forgive sins;
the body and blood of Christ are not present in the Eucharist, but only
bread and wine; and the Sacrament does not offer a pledge to assure
communicants that their sins have been forgiven. The second point is
common to all five Eucharistic tracts, but the issue of whether the
Eucharist forgives sins or provides assurance that sins have been for-
given appears most prominently in the two tracts mentioned above.23
In fact, Karlstadt understands these two treatises as complementing
each other, with the Widerchristlichen Mibrauch serving to elaborate
on the themes of the Dialogus.24
Further indication that Rhegius was referring to the Dialogus
emerges when he discusses Karlstadts argument that the Greek neuter
singular pronoun touto, meaning this, in the words of consecration
19
Urbanus Rhegius, Wider den newen irrsal Doctor Andreas von Karlstadt des
Sakraments halben Warnung (hereafter Rhegius, Newen irrsal) (Khler, Fiche 252,
Nr. 705).
20
Rhegius, Newen irrsal, A2v.
21
Andreas Karlstadt, Von dem widerchristlichen Mibrauch des Herren Brot und
Kelch (hereafter Karlstadt, Mibrauch) (Khler, Fiche 1949, Nr. 1524).
22
Andreas Karlstadt, Dialogus oder ein gesprechbchlin Von den grewlichen und ab-
gttischen mibrauch / des hochwirdigen Sacraments Jesu Christi (hereafter Karlstadt,
Dialogus), in Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 15231525, part 2, ed. Erich Hertzsch
(Halle [Saale]: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957), 749.
23
Karlstadt, Dialogus, 29, 30; Karlstadt, Mibrauch, a2v, b2v-b3r, c3r-c3v. These
themes do not appear in Ob man mit heiliger Schrift erweisen mge, da Christus mit
Leib, Blut und Seele im Sakrament sei (Khler, Fiche 48, Nr. 133) or Wider die alte und
neue papistische Messe (Khler, Fiche 207, Nr. 58). They appear only passingly in
Auslegung dieser Worte Christi Das ist mein Leib, welcher fr eich gegeben wird
(d5v) (Khler, Fiche 1446, Nr. 3833).
24
Karlstadt, Mibrauch, a3r.
michael keller 91
touto estin to soma mou refers not to the masculine gendered bread,
but to the neuter gendered body (soma). Rhegius taunts Karlstadt,
charging that his argument in this respect is so nonsensical that any
peasant could see how the clear words (of institution) compel Karlstadt
and drag him by his hair to his error.25 Rhegius, with this insult, seems
to be referring back to a scene in the Dialogus where the two characters
whom Karlstadt uses to present his view on the meaning of the word
touto are surrounded by a crowd of peasants who are hanging on their
every word. The peasant Peter even steps out of the crowd and
expresses satisfaction at their explanation, since it elaborates on the
truth that the Spirit had already taught him, namely, that Christ was
referring to himself when he said, This is my body.26 Karlstadt claims
through this scene, in effect, that this argument is both appealing and
comprehensible to the peasantry, and, by inference, that they form a
natural constituency for him. Rhegius turns the argument of compre-
hensibility on its head, asserting that the argument is so manifestly
nonsensical that even a peasant could see through itthat, in fact, any
real peasant that Karlstadt might hope to convince would not be duped
by his interpretation.
The significance of demonstrating that Rhegius had access to these
two treatises lies in the information it provides us regarding the sources
present in Augsburg in the late months of 1524 as a sacramentarian
community began to emerge. That the Dialogus was available in
Augsburg, and that Rhegius believed that it was widely accessible
enough to compel him to respond to its arguments, could explain
some of the early successes of the movement. The Dialogus was the
only Eucharistic pamphlet by Karlstadt written with a lay audience
particularly in mind. Composed in a casual dialogue form, the Dialogus
was more engaging than Karlstadts other often discursive and dis-
jointed treatises. Further, it played heavily on lay anticlerical senti-
ment. Finally, Karlstadt strained as in no other treatise to draw clear
lines between a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist and lay dis-
content over their economic exploitation at the hands of the clergy and
over their inferior spiritual status in the cleric-dominated religious
hierarchy.
25
Rhegius, Newen irrsal, b1r.
26
Karlstadt, Dialogus, 1317.
92 chapter three
The treatise consists of a dialogue between a priest (Gemser), a

learned man who doubts whether Christ is present in the Sacrament
(Dictus), and a common peasant (Petrus). Here, Karlstadt makes
unmistakably clear to lay readers or listeners that their spiritual, social,
and financial well-being is riding on the outcome of this complex theo-
logical debate. As Gemser speaks with his learned lay companion
Dictus about the Real Presence, three times in the first nine pages of
the forty-two-page treatise, he pleads with Dictus to speak Greek,
Jewish, and Latin, not to reveal these matters to the laity, and to be
quiet. For it seems that a great crowd of peasants has gathered around
the two men and that they are hanging on the debaters every word.
The peasants curiosity is maintained even as the men have a philologi-
cal discussion over whether the fact that the H in Hoc is capitalized
signifies that it must refer to Christ himself and not to the bread. Their
interest does not flag as the men take up the meaning of the Greek
word touto. As Dictus says, much depends on whether the touto refers
to the body of Christ.27
In this treatise, the curious peasants function as an appeal to lay
readers and listeners to plow through the complex arguments of the
book and of the Eucharistic debate in general. The peasants, who rep-
resent the readers peers and perhaps their social subordinates, realize
what is at stake, and the reader should too. The peasants are willing and
eager to follow the arguments, and then even take up the discussion
themselves, as Petrus would eventually do, besting his more learned
dialogue partners with his simple, Spirit-taught wisdom. One must not
be intimidated by the arguments of the priests and the learned. Much
is riding on the meaning of the touto.
In Karlstadts other treatises, the proponents of the Real Presence are
portrayed as deluded fools, blind guides leading other blind people
into the pit. In contrast, the Dialogus depicts them as fully aware that
they are preaching a false doctrine. They know that verba sunt aper-
tissime contra nos sacerdotes.28 They are only perpetuating this error
because they want to preserve their incomes and social status.
When Dictus asks Gemser what is wrong with letting the laity in on
their conversation, Gemser responds that he has to look out for his
financial self-interest: Dict: Is this bad? Gem: It is bad because the
27
Ibid., 15.
28
Ibid., 15.3132.
michael keller 93
laity first of all would come into their Christian freedom and would no
longer give a cent to a priest for celebrating the Sacrament.29
Dictus shortly afterwards emphasizes this point by indicating that
the doctrine of the Real Presence is the ideological underpinning of a
massive system enabling the clergy to financially exploit the laity:
Dict: But the greedy and foolish actually would have made a chest of
silver or gold out of the little word touto.30
For Karlstadt, the clergy maintains that Christ is present in the ele-
ments in order to preserve their elevated social standing. Gemser
admits that God has made revelations to the simple that he has hidden
from the wise (Mt. 11:25). However, he rejects Dictus charge that
he wants to hinder Gods power by continuing with his argumentation,
claiming, I should only wish to retain my prestige and exalted
station.31 As Gemser says a few lines later, It is difficult to abandon
old customs and ones own prestige.32 Karlstadts clerical defender of
the Real Presence comes off as conniving and slightly pathetic, some-
one to be disdained rather than feared.
This pamphlet represents a concerted attempt by Karlstadt to make
clear to his lay readership what is at stake for them in the dispute over
the Eucharist and to enlist their assistance in his high-stakes campaign
against Luther and his circle of supporters. No other treatise of
Karlstadt communicated as effectively his understanding of the eco-
nomic, spiritual, and status issues underlying the debate over the
Eucharist. No other treatise of his could have empowered the laity so
effectively for the political and theological struggle to come. Its acces-
sibility in Augsburg explains, at least in part, the early success of the
sacramentarian movement in the city.
The Augsburg presses would continue to keep the movement sup-
plied with Karlstadts Eucharistic treatises through 1525. Along with
Basel and Strasbourg, Augsburg formed an important publishing
center of Karlstadts pamphlet offensive of 1524 and 1525. After the
publication of the Widerchristlichen mibrauch in 1524, four more of
29
Dict: Ist es bse? Gem. So b / dz die leyen aller erst in ire christliche freiheyt
kommen / vnd nicht eynen heller vmb eynen priester von wegen eynes sacramentes /
mehr geben / wrden (Ibid., 13.1720).
30
Dict. Aber die geytzigen vnd narren hetten eygentlich au dem wrtlin Tuto
einen silbern oder glden kasten gemacht (Ibid., 15.2426).
31
Ich aber wlt meyn eere / vnd berste staat gern behalten (Ibid., 13.2425).
32
Es ist schwer alte gewonheyt / vnnd eygene eere verlassen [sic] (Ibid.,
14.1920).
94 chapter three
Karlstadts eight Eucharistic treatises were published in Augsburg in

1525.33 If we add to this number the Dialogus, we can conclude that at
least six of Karlstadts eight Eucharistic treatises were available within
the walls of Augsburg during this period.34 The accessibility of these
treatises would not only have provided supporters with an arsenal of
arguments to use in support of the cause, it also would have augmented
the buzz surrounding the issue. The appearance of each new treatise
would have elicited a new series of discussions and debates, with each
building upon the record of the previous one, drawing thereby an
increasing numbers of persons into an expanding web of discourse.
Rhegius himself bears witness to the early success of the sacramen-
tarian movement in Augsburg. He writes towards the end of the
treatise,
Let the foregoing be an answer now for you, dear Karlstadt, to your little
books, to which I would have preferred not to respond. However, the
duty of my office compels me. For I saw that this opinion of yours, as a
cancer, began to consume what was around it in the Christian congrega-
tion where I preach the Gospel. Therefore I needed to hurriedly confront
the error.35
At least as Rhegius saw it, the movement was spreading with a danger-
ous speed.
This later sentence makes it evident that although the first part of the
treatise addresses Karlstadt in the second person, it is not the convinc-
ing of Brother Andrew that is of foremost importance in Rhegius
mind. He was intent on refuting, in fact, the errors that had grown up
in his own congregation at the Franciscan church. The concerns that
he raises and issues he confronts in his refutation are therefore not
33
These were Wider die alte und neue papistische Messe; Erklrung des 10. Kapitels
Kor I: Das Brot das wir brechen ist es nicht eine Gemeinschaft des Leibes Christi; Von
dem neuen und alten Testament; and Erklrung wie Karlstadt seine Lehre von dem hoch-
wrdigen Sakrament und andere geachtet haben will. The Erklrung and Von dem
neuen und alten Testament were published exclusively in Augsburg, with the latter
going through two printing runs.
34
The other two were Ob man mit heiliger Schrift erweisen mge, da Christus mit
Leib, Blut und Seele im Sakrament sei, and Auslegung dieser Worte Christi: Das ist mein
Leib, welcher fr euch gegeben wird.
35
So vil sey dir ietz zu mal auff deine biechlen geantwort lieber Carelstat / auff die
ich vil lieber wolt nichs geantwort haben / es tribe mich aber meines ampts pflicht /
Dann ich sach / dz dise dein opinion als der krebs / anhub vmb sich zufressen / inn der
Christlichen versamlung / da ich Euangelizere / mut also eylentz dem irsal begegnen
(Rhegius, Newen irrsal, c4v).
michael keller 95
purely theoretical or academic, but reflective of actual problems he was

dealing with among his congregants. That he expected his congrega-
tion to read his treatise is clear from the fact that he addresses them
directly in the second section of the treatise.36 His purpose in writing
this latter section was to provide them with a summary of what he
himself had taught them. Structurally, in the first section of the treatise
he refutes heresies emerging in his congregation, and in the second he
reminds its members of the true faith.
The significance of the foregoing is that it establishes this treatise as
a potential source of information about the nature and views of that
early sacramentarian community, to whose existence Rhegius attests.
One instance in which Rhegius appears to have been discussing views
alive in his congregation as much as opinions expressed in Karlstadts
treatise occurs when he takes up the anti-sacerdotal underpinnings of
a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. Rhegius writes that Karlstadt
creates doubt in the minds of the simple people (i.e., of his congrega-
tion) about whether Christ commanded his disciples to bring his
body and blood into the sacrament.37 It is important to note that the
doubt of the simple people focused not so much on the Real Presence
itself, but on the power of the priest with his softly spoken words to call
Christ down from heaven into a piece of bread.38 The question posed
by Karlstadt that Rhegius seeks to answer, Wer hat euch gewalt geben
des herren leib vnd blut ins sacrament zu bringen,39 apparently had
confronted Rhegius in a context beyond the pamphlet. At stake is the
mediating role of the priest, of his ability to make Christ present and to
act as the gatekeeper, permitting or denying the laity access to the
sacred presence. At stake is the leadership role of the cleric in the
Christian community and his position in the spiritual hierarchy, ele-
vated over the lay person, both of which were legitimated by his medi-
ating power.
On a related matter, Rhegius argues that the clergy should indeed
be allowed to examine congregants before they receive the sacra-
ment. Karlstadt had argued, following the logic of Pauls remarks in
1 Corinthians 11:27-32, that it was sufficient to examine oneself before
taking the sacrament; one does not need a biblical scholar to perform
36
Ibid., d1v.
37
Ibid., b4a.
38
Ibid., b3v.
39
Ibid., b2r.
96 chapter three
that function.40 Rhegius replies that one cannot in every case examine
oneself without mediation (mitel). A simple person who understands
little of the death of Christ will not be able to perform a proper remem-
brance of Christs death unless first instructed in the prophets and
evangelists.41 In the act of pre-communion examination, the two gate-
keeping roles of the clergy come together. In their function as schrift-
gelehrten, they distribute divine truth to the ignorant laity. In their
sacerdotal function, they mediate, and thereby control, access to divine
grace.
Apparently, this was just too much gatekeeping for the sacramentar-
ians in Rhegius midst, for it appears that at least some of them gave up
attending the communion service altogether. Rhegius criticizes those
who change and despise (which I take to mean see no reason to
attend) the celebration of the Lords Supper.42 Certainly Karlstadt,
who valued the salutary effects of participating in the Lords Supper,
never advocated a dismissive attitude towards it. Rhegius must again
be referring to individuals within his congregation who, when faced
with a Eucharistic service heavily overlaid with a system of clerical
mediation, chose simply to opt out.
It was clear to Rhegius that he was facing an incipient sectarian
movement that was in the process of removing itself from the institu-
tional church with its outward offices and ceremonies. Its members
were determined to shrug the church off as a hopelessly clerical, medi-
ating institution and find for themselves the immediate experience
of the divine, perhaps meeting together in small cells. Rhegius attempts
in the second section of this treatise to woo them back with persua-
sive arguments. He eschews all use of coercion, arguing that no one
should be forced to receive the Eucharist. Instead, he lays out the ben-
eficial effects of communing so that people (presumably those not
previously inclined to attend) would be driven to partake by a desire
to assuage the angst in their own consciences and by their faith in
the Word.43
At the very end of the treatise, Rhegius makes the case one final time
for the value and scriptural basis of an institutionally conducted
Eucharistic service. He asserts that it is the servants of Christ, ordained
40
Ibid., c4v-c1r.
41
Ibid., c1r.v
42
Ibid., e2v.
43
Ibid., er4.
michael keller 97
by the (institutional) church, who are to prepare the table of the Lord,
in accordance with Christs commandments, so that everything will
happen in a fitting and orderly manner in the church.44 Whether or not
this appeal to order and authority resonated with his target audience, it
highlights the danger Rhegius was facing of a sectarian movement that
was rejecting the institutional church with its claims to stand between
the people and God. The most explosive point in this regard was, natu-
rally, the Eucharist, where the clergys role as gatekeeper appeared in its
most explicit and burdensome form.
It is clear that this movement, in its earliest manifestation, was heav-
ily influenced by Karlstadt. This should not surprise us. His style, his
broader interest in a lay-empowering, anti-sacerdotal theology, and his
willingness to clearly delineate the benefit for laymen and laywomen of
adopting a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, combined with
his prolific pen, earned him a broad influence in the early lay sacra-
mentarian movement, in Augsburg and elsewhere. Karlstadt was, how-
ever, a priest and a doctor of theology. While he may have understood
and appealed to the concerns that drove the laity, those concerns were
not his own. He could not so easily change estates. That his ideas were
well received indicates that his analysis of the driving motivations of
the laity was largely correct.
The question must be raised whether the compelling force behind
this movement consisted exclusively of trained theologians, awakening
the consciences of the slumbering laity, or whether inspiration and
ideas emerged sui generis from within the laitys own ranks. There is
indication that the latter is in part the case. Evidence comes from the
lay author Clemens Ziegler, who in his 1524 treatise Von der waren
nyssung beyd leibs vnd bluts Christi refers to himself in the title
as Gartner zu Straburg.45 In the introduction to his 1525 work Ain
fast schon bchli: In welchem yderman findet ein hellen vnd claren ver-
stand / von den leib vnd blut Christi, he was compelled to explain that
a gartner was a person who cultivated vegetables on small plots. This
was the case because after his first work was published, Then, some
44
Ibid., e4v.
45
Clemens Ziegler, Von der waren nyessung beid leibs vnd bluts Christi (hereafter
Ziegler, nyessung) (Khler: Fiche 1107, Nr. 2824). On Ziegler, see Johann Adam,
Evangelische Kirchengeschichte der Elsaessischen Territorien bis zur Franzoesischen
Revolution (Strasbourg: J. H. Ed. Heitz, 1928), 3335; Arnold, Handwerker, 107144;
Chrisman, Reform, 162164, 174175; Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, esp.
191203.
98 chapter three
brethren, who came to me from afar, told me how, in many cities, and
namely in Augsburg, one does not know what a gardener is.46
From the foregoing quotation we learn that Zieglers treatise Von der
waren nyessung beid leibs vnd bluts Christi was read in Augsburg. As
will be explained below, the treatise directly rejected a corporeal pres-
ence of Christ in the Eucharist, while allowing for Christs spiritual
presence.47 Or, as Ziegler would phrase it, Christs body was present in
the Eucharist, but his flesh was not. He thereby rejected the doctrine
of transubstantiation and demanded the abolition of liturgical prac-
tices that presupposed a localized presence of Christ in the elements
apart from their consumption in the communal meal. Such a treatise
by a layman, demanding deep reforms in Eucharistic practices that
enhanced the clergys control over the host, would have served to
inspire and embolden his compatriots in Augsburg.
Further, Zieglers remark points to a loose network of brethren
connecting various cities in the Germany, a shadowy movement of lay-
men (and perhaps laywomen), dedicated to church reform, and in par-
ticular, as their interest in Zieglers treatise shows, to the reform of the
celebration and interpretation of the Eucharist.
These are surely the same people that the Lutheran Caspar Huberi-
nus speaks of in his Relationen.48 He writes, Then the devil sent, in
46
so haben mir etliche Brder gesagt die von ferren zu mir kommen sind / wie
das man in vil stetten nit wei was ein gartner sey / vnd nemlich zu Augspurg
(Clemens Ziegler, Ain fast schon bchli: In welchem yderman findet ein hellen vnd
claren verstand / von den leib vnd blut Christi [hereafter Ziegler, bchli] [Khler, Fiche
1915, Nr. 4902], a2v).
47
This treatise is discussed further below.
48
Caspar Huberinus (Huber) was born perhaps in 1500 at Wilspach in Bavaria. He
took orders but left the monastery in the early years of the Reformation. In 1522 he
matriculated in Wittenberg, remaining there for two years and forming a personal re-
lationship with Luther. He resided in Augsburg from about 1525, where he worked as
an assistant to Rhegius, having been called from Wittenberg for that purpose. He did
not preach, however, due to personal timidity as well as his lack of the requisite vocal
qualities. Remaining a private citizen, Huber was a prolific contributor to the genre of
devotional literature.
Always a committed supporter of Luther, and a firm believer in his understanding
of the Eucharist, he became increasingly embittered and outraged as Augsburg came
under growing influence from the Zwinglians, and then in 1531 banned the Lutheran
celebration of the Eucharist outright. At this point Huberinus became more outspo-
ken, publishing his views on the Eucharist, appealing to Luther for advice, meeting
with like-minded Augsburgers, challenging his Zwinglian opponents to debates, and
generally making a nuisance of himself. He earned the animus of many on the city
council for threatening their religious policy, and was in danger of being expelled from
the city. Huberinus status as persona non grata changed, however, in 1535, when the
michael keller 99
addition to Michael Keller, many secret sacramentarians to Augsburg

who brought sacramentarian pamphlets here and there in the houses,
such that this messenger Keller made some disciples in Augsburg
before he would publicly declare and advertise his message, so that he
would have some pupils beforehand, and all the more quickly gain a
following.49
The statement of Huberinus corroborates the picture sketched by
Ziegler and by Rhegius. Lay sacramentarian cells, probably with sec-
tarian inclinations, were meeting in homes in Augsburg by the end
city council began to realize its increasingly isolated diplomatic and strategic situation,
and to see that the efforts of Bucer to establish a concord regarding the Eucharist were
gaining ground. As an acquaintance of Luther, untainted by the suspicion of sacra-
mentarian heresy, Huberinus became a valuable commodity. On June 21, 1535, he was
sent by the city council on a mission with Dr. Gereon Sailer to assure Luther of their
good intentions, desire for the concord, and willingness to conform the citys teaching
on the Eucharist to his own. As a gesture of goodwill they wanted to secure Luthers
assistance in gaining a preacher acceptable to him to preach in Augsburg. Luther
agreed to intervene with the Duke of Lneburg to secure the release of Urbanus
Rhegius from his service. He also recommended to them Master Johann Forster, a
native of Augsburg. The mission to Lneburg failed to produce results. Arrangements
were, however, made with Forster, who soon after was appointed preacher in Augsburg.
On Huberinus, see W. Germann, D. Johann Forster der Hennebergische Reformator, ein
Mitarbeiter und Mitstreiter D. Martin Luthers (n.p. [Erlangen?]: by the author, 1894),
5760, and Realencyklopdie fr protestantische Theologie und Kirche, s.v. Huberinus,
Caspar.
49
Dan er [the devil] schicket neben zu [that is, in addition to Michael Keller] viel
heimlichen schwermer gen Augspurg, die trugen schwermerische bchlein hin vndt
her in die heser auf das er [Michael Keller] zu vor etliche junger in Augspurg ma-
chete, ehe dan dieser bott sein bottschaft ffentlich ausrichtete vnd werben solte, damit
er also zu vor etliche leerjunger hette vndt desto ehe einen anhang gewonnen (Kaspar
Huberinus, Relationen, Stadtsbibliothek Augsburg, 4 Cod. Aug. 145, p. 10). The other
title of the work, Wie die Keiserliche Statt Augspurg erstlich von den Rottengeistern bel-
egert, endtlich aber durch die Schwermer erobert ist worden vndt wie es Hernacher in der
Kirchen ab Anno 1517 alda zugangen ist, provides a concise summary of the content
and tone of his account. The embittered Huberinus provides a narrative ending in
1541, which details the tactics employed by the devil through his minions, the
Schwermer and the Rottengeister, to extinguish the gospel in Augsburg. By Schwermer
are meant those individuals intent on destroying the power of the Eucharist, and
sometimes that of baptism, by denying its function as an instrumental means of grace.
They sometimes also engage in acts of iconoclasm to rile up the masses and win their
affection. He places in this category the likes of Karlstadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius,
and his arch-rival Michael Keller. Rottengeister refers to those focused on destroying
central political and social structures and institutions. Included in this group are rebel-
lious peasants and, more often, Anabaptists, who undermine society by refusing to
recognize the authority of the magistrate, denying that a Christian can be a magistrate,
refusing to swear oaths, and maintaining that all possessions should be held in com-
mon. Two manuscript copies of the Relationen, which was never published, exist in the
Stadtsbibliothek Augsburg. Apart from minor orthographic variances, they are identi-
cal. It is to the later one (4 Cod. Aug. 145), copied in 1790, that I will be referring.
100 chapter three
of 1524. They were nourished and encouraged by books, some by cler-

ics, some by laypersons, some published in Augsburg, some brought in
from outside. They were further supported by a wider network of like-
minded laity who supplied books, brought news from the brethren in
other cities, and presumably also carried out a teaching function. The
early sacramentarians in Augsburg appear as a self-organized group of
laity who had come together to agitate for issues important to them.
They were certainly influenced and assisted by the writings of trained
theologians. However, this fact should not obscure the independence
of their initiative.
Kellers Early Church-Building Endeavors
The question regarding the relationship between this group (or groups)
and Michael Keller is a difficult one to answer. Our only witness in this
regard is Caspar Huberinus, whose white-hot hatred of Keller and gen-
erally conspiratorial outlook must be taken into account. Huberinus
began with the presumption that Keller arrived in Augsburg as a secret
Schwermer, who only feigned to be a preacher of the Gospel. His men-
tal framework almost required him to take this position. He viewed
Augsburg as a city besieged by servants of the devil, sent in by their
master to destroy the citizenrys devotion to the Gospel. He fit Keller
neatly into this rubric. Huberinus considered Keller to be so utterly a
tool of the devil that it is almost inconceivable for him that Keller
might ever have been a legitimate preacher of Gods Word, swayed
away from the truth only at a later date.
According to the quotation cited above, Keller, while pretending to
be an Evangelical minister, secretly made contact with some of these
lay sacramentarians, making them his disciples. These, then, formed
his core supporters when he decided to go public with his views on the
Eucharist. They served to facilitate the expansion of his popularity.
Filtering out characterizations that can be designated as necessary out-
growths of Huberinus ideological position and personal animosities,
we are still left with a significant bit of evidence. Whenever Keller
adopted his symbolic view of the Eucharist, and whatever the lag time
between his personal decision and his public declaration, it is clear that
at some point he made contact with these sacramentarians and brought
them under his wing, making them into his own disciples.
As will become clear, this characterization corresponds with the
results that Keller managed to achieve in the aftermath of the Schilling
michael keller 101
affair. He was able to enter Schillings church, rife with social-revolu-

tionary sentiment, and win the affection of the congregants. He main-
tained Schillings populist approach while rejecting the socially radical
component of his message. Similarly in the case of the sacramentarian
movement, he was able to wrest it largely away from its sectarian tra-
jectory. Keller managed to reintegrate the movement into the civic and
institutional church life of Augsburg, establishing the Franciscan
church as its home, with himself, a preacher officially appointed and
paid by the city council, as its leader. Meanwhile, he did not completely
dampen the anti-mediational, anti-sacerdotal, anti-institutional, and
spiritualizing qualities of the movement. Kellers ability to harness
popular movements and drain them of their most explosive elements
would have made him a valuable employee in the eyes of the city coun-
cil.50 This may well explain the councils willingness to tolerate his
occasional extravagances and excesses.51
Indeed, the extraordinary success of Kellers program is widely
attested to. The growing popularity of Keller is described with much
bitterness by Huberinus. He mentions that at Easter time in either
1525 or 1526, Keller preached a sermon that drew about a thousand
men to his heresy.52 Huberinus laments further that over the next year
or two this heresy spread so extensively that other preachers besides
Keller fell into it, including Hans Seifried at St. Georg and Hans
Schmeid at zum Heiligen Kreuz. Even Urbanus Rhegius was caused to
waver from the faith. This would position us now in 1526. Huberinus
final despairing remark on the subject is: This error gained ground so
powerfully in Augsburg, that among the subjects [i.e. citizens or resi-
dents] very few were to be found who were not defiled by it.53
Other authors writing about Augsburg attest to this phenomenon.
Johann Eck, writing to Clement VII in a letter dated July 25, 1525,
declares, The majority of the people in Augsburg, Strasbourg, Zurich,
and other cities do not believe that the true body of Christ is under the
50
Keller reports that he had been originally enlisted to preach to Schillings congre-
gation for the precise purpose of calming the mob. Rhegius told him that ich [Keller]
solt ettlich sermon thun got zu eere und nutz und fromen des nechsten, auch zu stil-
lund den rauchen pofell, die nach dem minich, der gepredigt hett, noch schrieen.
(Roth, Keller, 161.)
51
For an example of the city councils indulgence, see the broken crucifix affair of
1529 below.
52
Huber, Relationen, 12.
53
diser Irthumb nam so gewaltig in Augspurg vberhand das vnter den Vnterthanen
seer wenig erfunded worden die nitt damit besudelt waren (Huber, Relationen, 13).
102 chapter three
Sacrament, but that only bread and wine are there.54 The letter of
Joachim Heim to Sebastian Weiss from March 7, 1528, describes a
similar situation. He writes, admittedly with some exaggeration, about
Augsburg, When an Anabaptist or a Zwinglian preaches among us,
then about 16,000 are present to listen. When the other doctors preach,
there are six or seven people present at most.55 In the same spirit,
Justus Jonas writes to Luther from Augsburg on June 20, 1530: You
should see that in the assemblies of Urbanus Rhegius scarcely two hun-
dred come to listen, in the assemblies of Michael Keller, however, six
thousand.56 These observations, when considered as a whole, paint a
clear picture of the sizable disparity of local support between Keller
and his Lutheran adversaries.
What, then, was the content of Kellers message at the Franciscan
church regarding the Eucharist, and what was the source of its appeal?
Further, can more be said about the composition and climate of Kellers
congregation during the early period of his ministry there? Answers to
these questions can be gleaned from the pamphlet, Ettlich Sermones
von dem Nachtmal Christi / Geprediget durch M.Michaeln / Keller /
Predicanten bey den Parfussern zu Augspurg.57 Printed, according to
the title page, in May 1525, it consists of a sermon preached by Keller
on the account of the Last Supper as it appears in Luke 22. This sermon
would have been preached less than six months after Keller had begun
his ministry at the Franciscan church.
Although we should not presume that the pamphlet records Kellers
sermon verbatim, internal evidence suggests that the pamphlet pre-
serves the content of the actual sermon and that it remains true to the
original form. Keller relates in the introduction how, preaching
through the Gospel of Luke, he came to the twenty-second chapter,
54
Major pars hominum in Augusta, Argentia, Turego et allies non credunt, verum
corpus Christi esse sub sacramento sed solum panum et vinum. Quoted in Roth,
Augsburg Reformationsgeschichte, 215, note 29.
55
wan ein widderteuffer oder ein Zwingelscher bey uns predigt, o seyn by
sechzentausent zuhoren, wan die ander doctores predigen, seindt yr sechs oder sieben
menschen auffs meysthe (D. Kawerau, Zur Reformationsgeschichte Augsburgs,
Beitrge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 2 (1896), 910).
56
Videas in Vrbani [Rhegii] concionibus vix ducentos osse auditores, in Michaelis
concionibus sex mila hominum (WA, Bw 2, 358, Nr. 1587).
57
Khler, Fiche 993 / Nr. 2522 (hereafter Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525). It went
through two printing runs in Augsburg in 1525. In 1526 an expanded version ap-
peared, which will be discussed below.
michael keller 103
which caused him to preach on the Supper.58 Although he does refer to

this passage throughout the sermon, the central organizing image in
the text is the ornate sacrament house, or ciborium, of the Franciscan
church, which apparently was standing behind him as he preached the
sermon and to which he repeatedly referred. His astute use of this
imposing object to focus his listeners attention reveals to us some of
his skills as a preacher and helps us to locate the sermon in its original
congregational context.
Even if we grant that he probably added material to the original ser-
mon, the pamphlet still provides important clues about the content of
his message on the Eucharist.59 His sermon was printed to answer the
attempts of his already virulent opponents who were distorting the
message of his sermons.60 The pamphlet would have functioned as a
public statement of his Eucharistic theology and as an attempt to pro-
ject his message beyond the walls of his church. In any case, it demon-
strates the content of his interpretation of the Eucharist that would
continue to attract crowds.
Addressing his congregation, Keller presents himself not as an insti-
gator of dispute over the Eucharist, but rather as a cool head attempt-
ing to steer the debate over the Real Presence towards more edifying
terrain. He writes at the beginning of his treatise:
I desire to establish first of all that I do not want in any way to enter into
squabbles and disputes over words (as indeed occurs daily among you).
Rather, I want to make known, according to the teaching of the Scripture,
the use and value of this Lords Supper, for which purpose our Lord
Christ established it. I do not want thereby that the cause and purpose of
this Lords Supper be neglected, indeed entirely omitted, on account of
our dispute. For I see that till now and, in fact, still today everyone pushes
and occupies themselves only to know What? What? is there in this
Lords Supper, but little Why? Why? Christ instituted it.61
58
Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525, a2r. It will be recalled that Schilling had also been
preaching through the Gospel according to Luke, and had reached the third chapter
when the trouble began in August 1524. It seems not unlikely that Keller picked up
where Schilling had left off.
59
He may not have added much additional material, however. Huberinus refers
to a sermon preached by Keller on the Eucharist sometime in this time frame,
which lasted two or three hours. It is probable that Huberinus was referring to the
sermon that Keller later published and with which we are now engaged (Huberinus,
Relationen, 12).
60
Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525, a2v.
61
will ich mich am ersten angedingt haben / In keinen weg in span / oder zangk
der wort (wie vol vnder euch tglich geschicht) mich nit begeben / Sonder den brauch
104 chapter three
A pattern has emerged in our study, one of common people repeatedly

taking the initiative to debate this issue, one which must have been of
considerable personal significance to them. They did not act largely as
pawns, stirred up by the powerful for their own purposes, or as passive
receptacles for theological opinions poured into them by their spiritual
and intellectual superiors. This is again demonstrated by the theologi-
cal debate rampant in Kellers congregation during the early months
of 1525 regarding what precisely was present in the bread and wine
after the words of consecration. There were daily quarrels and intense
speculation about was was [sic] da sey. These remarks put to rest any
characterization of the Eucharistic disputes being principally an
abstract theological debate, taking place among trained theologians
and of no great concern to the common man. Indeed, this pamphlet
presents us with the scene of a preacher attempting to restrain the
academic debate raging within his congregation so that spiritual ben-
efit of the Eucharist will not be lost. This image is consistent with
Kellers general approach towards the Eucharist. His statements implied
a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, but this in no way dimin-
ished the value that he attached to the celebration. Viewing the
Eucharist as a ritual that inspired love for God and neighbor and that
solidified bonds of community, Keller was loath to become mired in
academic debates about the mode of Christs presence in the elements.
Whether, and to what extent, however, he quietly egged on some of his
parishioners to engage in acts of anti-sacramentalism will be discussed
below.
Further, evidence from the sermon suggests that Keller was still in
the process of winning over his congregation to his sacramentarian
position on the Eucharist, and weaning them away from the traditions
with which they had grown up. Not everyone in his congregation was
a former sectarian sacramentarian, and he had to work to bring every-
one on board. About halfway through his sermon, he pauses to issue a
remarkable rebuke of his congregation:
vnnd nutz dises Nachtmals. Derwegens dann von vnserem herren Christo eingesetzt
ist / wie die schrifft leeret / erffnen / hiermitte nicht ob vnserem zanck grund vnnd
vrsach dises Nachtmals bergangen / Ja gantz geschwigen wirt / Dann ich sihe / das
biher vnd noch heut / yderman tringt vnd treybt / allein zu wissen / in disen Nachtmal
was was da sey / wenig aber / warumb warumb es Christus eingesetzt hab / (Keller,
Ettlich Sermones, 1525, a3r).
michael keller 105
So the next thing will be that I must exterminate everything from our
assembly hall or house that is against the Word of God, since it is the
congregation of Christians, and in it erect a true Sacrament house (as
one has up till now called it). For I notice how many are complaining that
I was spending a long time on this subject matter, and that I should come
to the point already. To them, I answer thus: My pious Christians, did
you not have to make some space for those who erected for you a stone
ciborium in the temple, and this at great expense and cost, for which you
had no commandment from God, indeed, exactly the opposite? Now
listen, since you granted plenty of time for this structure to be built and
acted without any commandment (indeed you acted against the Word of
God), why dont you want to give me some breathing space until I bring
forth from the Word of God and establish the true Sacrament house,
indeed the true monstrances, which God himself has chosen for a
dwelling?62
At issue was partially, but certainly not exclusively, the growing length
of Kellers sermon. For when Keller, turning to the churchs sacrament
house, chastises the congregation for their lack of dedication to
his program of building a proper sacrament house (which is the
Christian community) in comparison to their devotion to building
their stone sacrament house, it becomes clear that other issues were
in play. Keller was also expressing frustration over reluctance in the
congregation to dispense with traditional views and practices regard-
ing the Eucharist and follow him along a new path. He expresses,
62
So wirdt das nhest werden / das ich auch inn vnserem Saal oder hau / das da
ist / die versamlung der Christen / aurotten mu alles was dem wort Gottes entgegen
ist / vnd darinne ein rechts Sacrament hewle (wie mans bi hieher genendt hatt) auf-
frichten / Dann ich merck wie mich vil beklagen / ich gang lang mit der materi vmb /
Ich soll es flur rauher sagen / Den antwurt ich also / Mein frumme Christen habt ir
nicht lufft mussen geben / denen die euch ain steynen hewle in demTempel auffger-
icht haben / mitt grossem vnkost vnd schaden / des ir doch kein befelch von Gott
gehabt / sonder gestracks das widerspil / Hret ir nun / wie ir weyl vnnd zeytt disem
gebew auffzubawen vergnnet / vnd doch gar keinen befelch / Ja wider das wort Gottes
gehandelt habt / Warumb wlt ir mir dann auch nicht rawmb geben / bi ich au dem
wort Gottes herfr bringe und auffrichte / das rechte Sacrament hewle / Ja die rechten
Monstrantzen / wlliche im Gott selbist zu ainer wonung auerwlt hatt (Keller,
Ettlich Sermones, 1525, C3v-C4r). Luther in The Adoration of the Sacrament also
employs the rhetorical device of contrasting the ornate ciborium with the true cibo-
rium: The proper way to honor the Word is to fix it in your heart. The heart is the real
gilded ciborium. You accord the Word more precious honor with your heart, than if
you were to build a ciborium for the sacrament out of pure gold or the most costly
jewels (LW 36:278). Reflective of their different theological emphases, Kellers point is
to focus on the transforming presence of Christ in the community, while Luthers is to
highlight the salvific power of the Word in the individual soul.
106 chapter three
nevertheless, his determination to press through with the cleansing of

the congregation.
Furthermore, Keller dedicates extended sections of his sermon to
refuting popular beliefs about the supernatural power of consecrated
hosts. According to Keller, practices like the reservation of the host,
crop blessings, weather blessings, rogation processions with the host,
and bowing down as the host processed by on the way to the home of
a sick person, have established a powerful hold on the people and are
still widely accepted. Keller believes his duty is to instruct the common
ignorant man on his erroneous views concerning these matters so that
in time these practices will be abolished.63 His frustration is evident
when he declares, Can the Lord God (in whose hands all things live
and are suspended) not protect for you, your city, your village, your
crops in bloom and at harvest, unless you carry your mass-bread
around?64 This remark lends additional support to the description of
Kellers congregation as one still populated to some extent by individu-
als reluctant to cast off their old views, even as they came to hear the
sermons of the Evangelical preacher.
The composite image of the Franciscan church depicts an assertive
but not monolithic congregation, and a bold preacher in the process
of attempting to shape it in accord with his own vision. Some mem-
bers, including the disciples that Huberinus alludes to, were certainly
loyal to his general program, although Keller did not find entirely
helpful their daily quarreling over the question of Christs presence in
the Eucharist. Others were listening to him but were not yet fully
on board. We know the end of the story: Keller would achieve great
success over the coming years. The question to answer, then, is what
message did he convey and what tactics did he employ to effect
such a large-scale conversion to his symbolic interpretation of the
Eucharist?
According to Keller, the overarching message that Jesus wanted to
convey in the Eucharist was that his followers should love each other as
he has loved them.65 To this end, he proclaimed his testament as an
63
Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525, e4v-f1r.
64
Kan dir got der herre (in wlches hende alle ding leben vnd schweben [)] / dein
stat dein dorf /dein flor vnd fruchte nit bewaren / dann du brangest mit deinem
Mebrot herumb (Ibid., f3v).
65
So kompt nun Christus im Nachtmal her vnnd spricht: das ist mein will / das ir
einander lieben solt / als ich euch geliebt hab / (Ibid., b4r).
michael keller 107
expression of his sacrificial love, according to which his body was to be

delivered up for them and his blood poured out for them for the for-
giveness of sins. Further, he issued his final command that his follow-
ers love one another even as he has loved them (John 13:34). Then, so
that his followers would learn, remember, and reflect on the love that
he had shown for them, he instituted the two external elements of the
bread and the wine as a symbol, sign, or seal. The disciples were to eat
the bread and drink the wine so that as they considered his sacrificial
atoning death, they would reflect on, give thanks for, and proclaim the
inexpressible love of God towards them, which he had poured out in
them through Christ. Such a consideration should impel them to love
each other with their hearts and practice heartfelt and brotherly good
works.66
The external signs of the Eucharist, particularly the bread, func-
tioned also to remind the participants that they formed collectively a
communion in the body of Christ. Keller begins this part of his argu-
ment by referring to John 6:56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood abides in me and I in him. Then he gives a communal thrust to
this passage, which ostensibly focuses on the private relationship
between Christ and the communicant, by relating it to 1 Corinthians
10:16-17: The cup of blessing which we bless is it not a communion in
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion
in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are
one body, for we all partake of the one bread.67 Thus, John 6:56 does
not refer primarily to a union of the individual soul with the person of
Jesus. Rather, Keller maintains that those who believe in him and love
him (that is, who eat his flesh and drink his blood) abide in the new
body that he has created, namely, the church. Through faith in and love
for Christ, all the faithful join together to form collectively Christs
body, the church. The bread that they break during communion sym-
bolizes the communion that they have with each other. Keller takes the
emphasis off the individuals relation to the person of Christ, made
manifest by a unique presence in the elements, and focuses instead on
66
Ibid., b3v-b4r.
67
Wer also von diser spey wirt essen / vnd von disem kelch trincken / In dem will
ich beleyben / vnnd er in mir / ja so wir dermassen das brott brechen vndereinander /
vnd den Kelch des HERREN trincken / Werden wir nicht ein gemeynschafft des leybs
vnd blut Christi : Wie dann Paulus klar hell anzeygt / da er den Corinthern schreybt
(Ibid., b4r).
108 chapter three
the individuals relation to the spiritual body of Christ, the church, and
the relationships of the individuals within that body.68
Keller is determined to point out that this communion is not formed
in the partaking of the bread and wine. Rather, it is the already-formed
church that comes together to celebrate the Lords Supper. His point is
that the Lords Supper does not effect a fundamental change, but rather
serves to remind people of their relationship to Christ and their fellow
Christians, and of their resulting obligations. These obligations are
(and Keller is quoting freely here from Ephesians 4:3-6) to remain
eager to maintain the unity in the Spirit in the bond of peace, and to
have one love [sic] and one spirit in one God. Further, Keller asserts
that when the communicants break the bread among themselves, they
announce and confess to each other that they are among those who
have believed and placed their trust in Christ and been redeemed
through his death.69
Fundamental to this aspect of the Eucharist is the communal quality
of the meal. It functions as a ritual of communal self-identification and
solidarity. In it, the group identifies itself as a discrete, unified body,
and its members publicly declare themselves part of it, pledging them-
selves to mutual support and harmony with the other members. It is in
this context that Kellers understanding of the Supper as an admoni-
tion to love each other is to be understood. The call to love is a call to
solidify the ties that join together this community. The community
that Keller was attempting to build was, of course, his congregation
at the Franciscan church. From his eventual success we can adduce
that his vision of a religious communion knit together by oaths of
68
Ein brot vnd ein leyb seynd wir die gantz menge / die weyl wir alle eines brots
teylhafftig seynd / Darau wir sehen / das die gantze menge / das ist / die Kirch der
glaubigen inn Christum disen leyb machet (Ibid., b4r). In Ain Schone vnderweysung
vnd leer, Keller states that the communion meal wherein all participants drink from
one cup and eat of one loaf reminds them that they are all one loaf, one body whose
head is Christ, and a communion of members living in one love. Wir vil sein ain
brot / vnd wir vil seind ain leyb / wo: an dem haupt Christi / wir alle. welche: so in
ainem brot vnd ainem tranck gemainschafft haltend / was hait gemainschafft: Alle die
in ainer liebe gleych lebend 1 Corinth 10 (B1r). It is worthwhile to note that the
German word for loaf, laib, was, in this period, often spelled identically to the word for
body, leib or layb. A sixteenth-century reader of Kellers pamphlet would have under-
stood the play of associations contained in the use of the word leyb.
69
So wir das brot vndereinander brechen / Ist es nicht das wir alle die leyb Christi
seynd / Vns Erkndigen vnnd ffnen / das wir au deren zal seyen / die also (wie
oben gemelt) Inn Christum glauben / ime vertrauwn / vnd gentzlich auff inen vns
verlassen / das er durch seynen todt vnd leyb dargeben / vns erlt hab (Ibid., b4v).
michael keller 109
allegiance and acts of love held an appeal not only to the sectarian sac-
ramentalists with whose outlook such a program would have reso-
nated, but also with the broader artisanal classes who would flock to
his church. Joiners by inclination, the artisanal class organized itself in
institutions such as guilds and confraternities that offered a measure
of group solidarity and support of both a secular and spiritual nature.70
A religious communion, such as the one envisioned by Keller, would
have corresponded well with their experience.
In Ain Schone vnderweysung vnd leer, Keller rails against two alter-
native approaches to celebrating the Eucharistthe Mass and the
house mealprimarily because they do not properly incorporate the
communal aspect of the ceremony. Regarding the mass, he remarks,
What has caused us for a long time to violate the Lords will by not cele-
brating the Lords Supper as a remembrance of his love, for the benefit of
our neighbor? This did not happen because of us, but only because the
Lords Supper was given the invented name the Mass, without any basis
in the whole Scripture. In the mass every person has sought their own
salvation for themselves alone, and has not considered the good of the
entire community. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, [Philippians 2:4]
Let each of you look not only to his own interests but also to the inter-
ests of others.71
This criticism, whether ultimately fair or not, could be applied to a
Lutheran Eucharist as well as to a Catholic Mass. Keller charges that in
Eucharistic services where people go in seeking something, a gift or a
benefit, they end up considering only themselves and forgetting their
fellow Christians.
On the question, presumably, of whether the Eucharist can be cele-
brated as part of the evening meal, he responds,
70
For a discussion of Confraternitas as a cultural form or social resource mani-
festing itself in a broad range of self-organized lay institutions in the late Middle Ages
and Early Modern period, see Nicholas Terpstra, Ignatius, Confratello: Confraternities
as Modes of Spiritual Community in Early Modern Society (hereafter Terptstra,
Ignatius), Early Modern Catholicism: Essays in Honor of John W. OMalley, S.J., eds.
Kathleen M. Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2001), 163182.
71
Was hat vns aber lange zeit / zu solchem / das also nit von vns geschehen ist /
geursacht: allain das man vns solchs nachtmal / mit ainem erdichten namen ain Me
genennt hat / on grund aller schrifft / darinn ain yetlicher allain fr sich / sein saligkait
gesucht hat / vnd nit die gantz gemain betracht wie 1 Corinth 10. Paulus redt /vnd
spricht / Niemand such allain das sein / besonder de andern (Keller, Ain Schone
vnderweysung vnd leer, a4r).
110 chapter three
Then there is a big difference between the Lords Supper and another
meal, although, certainly all meals should be received with thanksgiv-
ing. However, in the Lords Supper particularly, one should proclaim
the death of Christ, passionately consider it, and give thanks for it. And
above this, the participants, through receiving the visible word-sign,
should bind themselves together in brotherly servanthood, and make
a covenant with each other with body and blood in the holy Word of
his commandment. Further, the participants should not come together
just for the sake of eating and drinking, but rather to renew and
strengthen their love. This is the communion that Paul refers to in 1
Corinthians 10.72
A house meal does not satisfy the requirements of a Eucharistic ser-
vice, because such a service is particularly designated for the purpose
of proclaiming, reflecting on, and giving thanks for the death of Christ,
a function which, in an evening meal, would have to share the table
with the need to nourish the body. More importantly (ber das), how-
ever, it is vital that the Eucharist take place within the Christian con-
gregation, a requirement which those gathering around the dinner
table do not satisfy. The Eucharist is essentially a communal meal and
serves most essentially to bind together the members of the whole con-
gregation in mutual brotherly servanthood through eating the visible
signs. The celebration of the Eucharist in homes, an approach that
some of the sectarians in his congregation may have found appealing,
or may have actually been practicing, would have succeeded in atom-
izing the Christian congregation, the body of Christ. Non-negotiable
for Keller was that a Eucharistic service be celebrated in such a manner
that individuals not be diverted by consideration of their own salva-
tion or their special relationship to certain individuals from the princi-
pal purpose of the Eucharist, namely that each participant die ganzt
gemain betracht.
Kellers overriding concern to present a communal Eucharistic the-
ology brings him into a complicated relationship with the doctrine of
72
Dann es ist ain grosser vnderschaid zwischen dem Christmal vnd aym andern
mal / ob gleych wol alle Tischmal mit dancksagung sllend angenomen werden / ye
doch in dem Christmal soll man sonderlich den tod Christi verkndigen / vnd hert-
zlich betrachten vnd darumb dancksagen / vnd ber das / durch entfahung de sicht-
parlichen wortzaichens / sich mit leib vnd mit blut in dem hayligen wort / seynes
befelchs / in bruderlicher dienstparkait zusammen verbinden / vnd verpflichten / vnd
nit allayn von essen vnnd trinckens willen / zusammenkommen / besonder die liebe
ernewren vnd beuestigen / das ist die gemainschafft die Paulus nennt. 1 Corinth. 10
(Keller, Ain Schone vnderweysung vnd leer, b2r).
michael keller 111
the Real Presence. On the one hand, this doctrine effects a horizontali-
zation of the relationships within the Eucharistic service, moving the
emphasis from the relationship between the individual soul and the
divine, to that of the individual to other individuals, the individual to
the community, and the community to itself. When a unique presence
of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist is posited, a presence that is
consumed by the communicant, the focus naturally converges on the
communion between the individual and Christ. This is true because
the act of consuming Christ provides a metaphor so overwhelmingly
powerful for the communion of the individual soul and the divine that
all other aspects of the Eucharistic celebration tend to be relegated to
the background. Discussions of the Eucharist then generally revolve
around what impact the present Christ has on the believer who con-
sumes him, whether it be forgiveness of sins, spiritual fortification and
consolation, or mystical union.
Removing a localized presence of Christ in the elements allows the
other components of the ritual to come to the fore: the commandment
to remember and proclaim in a communal setting Christs act of sacri-
ficial love, and the ritual significance of the communal meal, symbol-
ized in particular in the eating of the bread. The bread symbolizes the
entire community; in breaking off a piece and consuming it, one iden-
tifies oneself with that community. Under these circumstances, the dis-
cussions surrounding the Eucharist tend to focus on its role in
community and identity formation.73
Here, it will be instructive to compare Kellers sermon with two
roughly contemporaneous sermons of Luther. Both of Luthers ser-
mons were included in various versions of his postils, and were pub-
lished separately. Confession and the Lords Supper was preached
in 1524 and issued in eight individual German editions between
1524 and 1525. Two of these editions were published in Augsburg.
73
Bossy makes use of both scholastic distinctions between the sacrificial and sacra-
mental components of the Mass, and anthropological categories, especially from Ren
Girard, to argue that the sacrificial part of the Mass highlighted the distinctions in the
Christian community, while the sacramental, or communal, part of the Mass empha-
sized the communitys unity. According to Bossy, the reformers attempted to reassert
the role of the Eucharist in representing the unity of the Christian community, and so
abolished the sacrifice, which divided the community between priest and lay, friend
and foe, familiar and stranger. He asserts, however, that, in the end, individualistic,
asocial participation in the Eucharist would prevail among both Catholics and
Protestants (Bossy, Mass). Keller is intent on avoiding precisely such an outcome.
This issue will be discussed in chapter five below.
112 chapter three
Further, it appeared in the portion of Luthers Kirchenpostille published

in 1525, which covered the period from Three Kings Day till Easter.
Stephan Roth then included it in his edition of Luthers Winterpostille,
first published in 1528.74 A Sermon on the Reception of and Preparation
for the Most Holy Body of Jesus Christ was printed seven times between
1523 and 1524 as an individual sermon, including once in Augsburg.
In 1523 and again in 1525 the sermon appeared as part of the treatise
Rules and Instructions, How Those Wishing to Go to the Lords Supper
Should Conduct Themselves. It was also included in the 1528, 1531, and
1532 versions of Roths edition of Luthers Sommerpostille.75
The value of using these sermons from the postil collections, rather
than one of Luthers Eucharistic treatises (for example, the contempo-
raneous Wider die himmlischen Propheten), lies not only in that
one can thereby compare texts of like genres. Rather, the sermons,
widely distributed both as part of the postils and separately, were read
individually, served as models for Lutheran preachers, and were read
verbatim from the pulpit. These sermons give us an indication of how
the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist would have been
preached, and, consequently, what cities and congregations with
Lutheran pastors would have understood to be the Lutheran view of
the Eucharist.
We have evidence that, in fact, lay persons in Augsburg consulted
printed editions of Luthers sermons in order to discern his under-
standing of the Eucharist. Eitelhans Langenmantel, an Augsburg patri-
cian who rejected the Real Presence and would later join the
Anabaptists, wrote against Luthers interpretation of the Eucharist in a
1527 treatise entitled Ain Kurtzer Anzeig, wie Martin Luther hat etliche
74
Ein Sermon von der Beichte und dem Sakrament. Item vom Brauch und Bekenntni
christlicher Freiheit (WA 15:438453; 481506). The actual sermon under discussion
comprises sermons number 15 and 16 in WA 15:481506. Ein Sermon von der Beicht
und dem Sakrament was commonly bound together with the sermon Vom Brauch und
bekentnis Christlicher freyheit, which is to be found in WA 15:444453. A common
introduction is found in WA 15:438444. See also WA 21:163 for notations on the
sermon in Roths Winterpostille. My translations are, unless otherwise designated,
taken from The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, ed. John Nicholas Lenker (hereaf-
ter Lenker, Complete Sermons), vol. 1.2 (The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin
Luther, vol. 10, Minneapolis: Lutherans in all Lands, 1905; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 2000), 193214 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
75
Ain Sermon. Von der Empfahung und zuberaytung Des hochwirdigen fronleichnam
Jhesuchristi Allenchristen menschen vast nutzlich zu underweyung (WA 12:472493;
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 223237).
michael keller 113
Schriften lassen ausgehen vom Sakrament.76 In it, Langenmantel repeat-

edly refers to different printed sermons of Luther as sources for his
understanding of Luthers Eucharistic theology. He discusses a sermon
that Luther preached about the Eucharist on Maundy Thursday in
1522.77 Then, he takes up another sermon that Luther had published
on the Sacrament in relation to John chapter six. He challenges those
doubting his characterization of Luthers sermon to read it for them-
selves.78 Finally, he consults the sermons in Luthers Postil to determine
what Luther has to say there about the Eucharist.79 Langenmantels
general conclusion is that Luthers Eucharistic theology is confused
and self-contradictory.80 Even the tract of Luthers that prompted
Langenmantel to write, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ-
against the Fanatics, was itself composed of a series of three sermons.
Printed sermons tended to be short pieces with a practical orientation
and not heavily overlaid with technical language, just the right format
to allow laymen and laywomen to gain an understanding of someones
Eucharistic theology.
In these two sermons, Luther was reacting against the Roman
Catholic teaching that the Mass was a sacrifice and a good work. For
him, the central function of the Eucharist was to provide a venue in
which one could receive some gift from God, whether it be forgiveness,
comfort, or salvation. This [poison and torture] is what we made of it
by our false doctrine, when we imagined we were to bring the offering
of our piety to God, and hid the words that were to give comfort and
salvation, strengthen our consciences, refresh, gladden, and free them
from every distress. This is the meaning of the Lords Supper, and we
are to look upon it only as containing sweet grace, consolation, and
life.81 So when I receive the sacrament, then Christ receives me and
76
Khler, Fiche 962, Nr. 2403 (hereafter Langenmantel, Kurzer Anzeig).
Langenmantel is discussed extensively below.
77
Langenmantel, Kurzer Anzeig, b2r.
78
Ibid., b3r.
79
Ibid.
80
Langenmantels understanding of the Eucharist will be discussed in chapter four
below.
81
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 207208 (22). Dies were der rechte brauch des sacra-
ments, damit die gewissen nicht gemartert, sonder getrst und frlich werden. Denn
Gott hat es nicht geben, als solt es eyn gifft und marter seyn, das man darfur erschreck-
en solt, wie wir gethan haben, durch die verkerete lere, als solten wyr da unser frum-
keyt gotte opfferen, und haben die wort, die uns zu trost und heyl geben sind,
die gewissen zu stercken, erquicken, frlich und loss von allem ungluck zu machen,
114 chapter three
consumes me also, and devours me and my sins, and I enjoy his

righteousness.82
Further, in a manner consistent with his broader theological pro-
gram, Luther insists that the offer made by Christ in the words of insti-
tution, Take, eat; this is my body which is given for youtake, drink
you all of it; this cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed
for you for the remission of sins is intended for each person indi-
vidually. The atomized nature of this aspect of the Eucharistic service
comes out clearly in his sermons: For in confession as in the Lords
Supper you have the additional advantage, that the Word is applied to
your person alone. For in preaching it flies out into the whole congre-
gation, and although it strikes you also, yet you are not sure of it; but
here it does not apply to anyone except you.83 Such an approach is to
be expected from Luther, whose overriding concern in the Eucharist is
to apply pastoral care to the individual tortured soul. When death
now and an evil conscience assail you, you can rely on this and defy the
devil and sin, and thus strengthen your faith and gladden your con-
science towards God.84
The consequence of Luthers focus in the Eucharist on the internal
turmoil of the individual soul is that the hortatory, moral imperative,
and especially the communal ethic, of the Eucharist tends to be side-
lined.85 The reasons for this are twofold. First, unlike in the communal
verborgen. Also sollt mans fassen und das sacrament nicht anders ansehen, denn das
darynn eytel ssse gnade, trost, und leben sey (WA 15:496, ll. 2330).
82
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 233 (20). Widerumb wen ich das sacrament neme, so
nympt mich Christus unnd verzert mich auch und frit mich und mein snd und ich
geniesse seyner gerechtikeit (WA 12.1:489, ll. 57).
83
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 199 (10). Denn in der beycht hastu auch diss vorteyl
wie ym sacrament, das das wort alleyne auff deyn person gestellt wird. Denn yn der
predig fleugt es ynn die gemeyne dahyn, und wie wol es dich auch trifft, so bistu seyn
doch nit so gewiss. Aber hie kan es nymand treffen denn dich alleyn (WA 15:486, ll.
3033).
84
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 207 (21). Wenn dich nu der todt und das bss gewis-
sen ansicht, kanstu dich darauff stnen und trotzen widder den Teuffel und die sund
und also deynen glawben stercken und das gewissen frlich machen gegen Gott (WA
15:496, ll. 1417).
85
Thomas J. Davis, The Truth of the Divine Words: Luthers Sermons on the
Eucharist, 15211528, and the Structure of Eucharistic Meaning, The Sixteenth
Century Journal 30 (Summer 1999): 325, n. 8, 331335, argues that the significance of
the communio sanctorum does not diminish for Luther over the course of the 1520s.
Rather, it takes up a new place in the order of Eucharistic meaning, being subordi-
nated to the Words of power (which effect Christs true presence), benefit (which bring
forgiveness of sins), and comfort (by which worshipers apply the benefit to them-
selves). Davis maintains that it actually becomes a stronger concept because Luther
michael keller 115
or remembrance meal, where the only fruit of the Eucharist is ethical,

communally oriented behavior, in the Lutheran Eucharist, there are
two fruits.86 The first fruit is the spiritual transformation, which Luther
characterizes as becoming one body with Christ. The moral transfor-
mation or imperative, upon which Keller focuses unremittingly, is,
in Luthers system, the secondimportant, but nevertheless deriva-
tivefruit. Luther declares, Now this is the fruit, that even as we have
eaten and drunk the body and blood of Christ the Lord, we in turn
permit ourselves to be eaten and drunk, and say the same words to
our neighbor, Take, eat and drink; and this by no means in jest, but in
all seriousness, meaning to offer yourself with all your life, even
as Christ did with all that he had, in the sacramental words.87 The
point is not to discount the seriousness with which Luther takes the
ethical implications of the Eucharist. Rather, the foregoing merely
underscores how Luthers concern for the troubled soul requires him
to divide the emphasis in his sermons, something Keller is not forced
to do.
Finally, one must take care not to confuse the inclusion of a moral
imperative with a communal or, more precisely, congregational ethic.
In both sermons, Luther devotes considerable space to the ethical
implications of the Eucharistic celebration. In A Sermon on the
Reception of and Preparation for the Most Holy Body of Jesus Christ,
Luther addresses Pauls indisputably communal remarks in 1 Corinthi-
ans 10:17 on the Eucharist: Because there is one bread, we who are
many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Luther remarks,
We become like, and one with, all the other believers, wherever they
anchors it to the Word. Whether from a purely theological or philosophical perspec-

tive, the subordination of a concept to a host of others necessarily entails a diminution
of that concepts significance in the overall system, or whether a concept so subordi-
nated can have the same value as it would in a system in which it remains principal, are
questions that do not concern us here. Of interest in this study is the forcefulness with
which such a subordinated concept as the communal ethic in Luther would impact
those hearing a sermon or reading a pamphlet. My contention is that under such cir-
cumstances, the impact of such a concept would be diminished.
86
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 231 (16); WA 12.1:485486.
87
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 208 (24). Diss ist aber nu die frucht, das wyr uns
widder lassen essen und trincken, wie wyr des Herrn Christi leyb und blutt gessen
und truncken haben, und auch zu unserm nehisten dise wort sprechen: Nym hyn, yss
und trinck, das es nicht eyn spott, sondern ernst sey, das du dich da hyn gibst mit allem
deynem leben, wie Christus ynn disen worten than hat mit allem das er ist (WA
15:498, ll. 1419).
116 chapter three
are upon the earth, and all are thus one bread, one cake.88 While this
imagery is indeed communal, the network of obligations is so exten-
sive, encompassing all of Christendom, that the result turns out to be
an ethic whose model is one based on individual relations.89
In contrast, Kellers communal Eucharistic ethic, which may be
called more precisely congregational, applies primarily to the local
Christian community, since he understands the one bread to be those
who actually partake of the elements together. By limiting the ethical
implications of the Supper largely to a circumscribed group of indi-
vidual Christians, the prospects of forging actual interdependent com-
munal bonds and developing a collectivist ethic, considering the good
88
Lenker, Complete Sermons, 231 (16). Die ander, das wir auch gemeyn und eyns
werden mit allen andern leuten uff erden und auch alle eyn kuche (WA 12.1:486, ll.
13).
89
Standing behind this remark is Luthers understanding of the communio sancto-
rum, the communion of the saints, which Luther in his 1519 treatise, The Blessed
Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, makes the signifi-
cance and effect of the sacrament. Since it functions as the organizing principle of the
sermon, Luther explores at length his understanding of the communion of the saints.
Here, Luther makes every attempt to disassociate his communal idea, that all are sup-
ported by the love and prayers of the communion of Christ and all the saints, from a
strictly congregational one. That is, he refuses to instantiate this notion in a visible
congregation of the faithful. Quite the contrary, he writes, Derhalben es auch nutz
und nott ist, das die lieb und gemeynschafft Christi unnd aller heyligen vorborgen,
unsichtlich und geystlich gescheh, und nur eyn leyplich, sichtlich, euerlich zeychen
derselben un geben werde, dan wo die selben lieb, gemeynschafft und beystand of-
fentlich were, wie der menschen zeytlich gemeynschafft, s wurden wir da durch nit
gesterckt noch geubt, yn die unsichtlichen und ewigen guter zu trawen odder yhr zu
begeren (WA 2:752753, ll. 363). (Therefore it is also profitable and necessary that
the love and fellowship of Christ and all the saints be hidden, invisible, and spiritual,
and that only a bodily, visible, and outward sign of it be given to us. For if this love,
fellowship and support were apparent to all, like the transient fellowship of men, we
would not be strengthened or trained by it to desire or put our trust in the things that
are unseen and eternal [LW 35, 65].) In fact, one of the defining characteristics of the
communion of the saints is that one does not directly experience the love and aid that
one obtains from it. Darumb ist die me und di sacrament eyn tzeychen, daran wir
un uben und gewenen, alle sichtliche lieb, hulff und trost zuvorlassen und yn
Christum und seyner heyligen unsichtlich lieb, hulff, und beystand zuerwegen (WA
2:753, ll. 911). (For this reason the mass and this sacrament are a sign by which we
train and accustom ourselves to let go of all visible love, help, and comfort, and to trust
in the invisible love, help, and support of Christ and all his saints [LW 35, 66].) Such
an approach contrasts sharply with Kellers congregational theology, which locates the
spiritual body of Christ, symbolized in the Eucharist, in the visible congregation and
calls for visible acts of love to be performed among the members. Luther does not
elaborate this anti-congregational Eucharistic theology in his two Postil sermons to the
extent that he does in The Blessed Sacrament. For this reason it is instructive to look to
The Blessed Sacrament to clarify further his statements in the Postil sermons.
michael keller 117
of the whole community, becomes a feasible objective. In Luthers

case, given the universality of his community, a collectivist Eucharistic
ethic cannot be sustained and so is resolved into an individualized
ethic where individual Christians care for each other. And we
Christians do the same thing [as Christ did for us] among one another,
one becomes interested in the other, so that one bears the others sins
and infirmities and serves him with piety.90
This resolution of the communal into the individual serves also to
bring Luthers Eucharistic ethic more closely into harmony with his
theology regarding the reception of Gods gift offered in the Eucharist.
In the first phase of the Eucharist, Christ speaks to and offers the gift of
the sacrament to each soul individually. In the second phase, as the
foregoing quotation demonstrates, the individual believer, who has
received the words and gift from Christ presented directly to him or
her, responds in kind, performing similar works for another individual
Christian. This structural symmetry in Luthers thought should not be
seen as a coincidence, but as the result of a compelling drive towards
correspondence, which in the end triumphs over the communal com-
ponent of Luthers thought. The centrality of reception and gift in
Luthers Eucharistic theology establishes a dynamic in his thought that
pushes him towards an individualized Eucharistic ethic.
Similarly, in Confession and the Lords Supper, the emphasis is placed
on giving to ones neighbor individually what one has just received
individually from Christ in the Eucharist: Behold, my dear brother,
I have received my Lord; he is mine and I have more than enough, and
great abundance. Now you take what I have, it shall be yours and
I place it at your disposal. Is it necessary for me to die for you, I will
even do that.91 At the end of the sermon, Luther again draws on 1
Corinthians 10:17 as a support for his admonition that those who par-
ticipate in the Eucharist are to manifest love towards their neighbors.
The image of being one bread describes how we are woven one into
the other, helping one another even as Christ helped us.
90
Lenker, Complete Sermons 235 (22.) Also thuen wir Christen undereinander
auch, nympt sich eyner des andern an, das einer des andern snd unnd geprechen
tregt und mit seiner frumket dienet (WA 12.1:490, ll. 1618).
91
Lenker, Complete Sermons 209 (24). Sihe meyn lieber bruder, Ich habe meynen
Herren entpfangen, der ist meyn, und habe nu uberleng genug und alle flle, So nym
du nun auch was ich habe, das soll alles deyn seyn, und will es auch fr dich dar setzen.
Ist es not, das ich fur dich sterben soll, so will ichs auch thuen (WA 15: 498, ll.
2730).
118 chapter three
In sum, communal imagery is not foreign to Luthers thought;

indeed, he incorporates it into both sermons discussed here. However,
due to Luthers overarching theological framework, in neither case can
it assume the centrality that it does in Kellers symbolic remembrance
meal. In both of Luthers sermons, the emphasis on gift and reception
de-centers the hortatory appeal to moral living characteristic of Kellers
sermon. Second, even within the context of Luthers discussion of the
moral fruit of the Sacrament, the impact of his communalist language
is mitigated by his structurally coherent emphasis on moral relations
between individuals. In A Sermon on the Reception of and Preparation
for the Most Holy Body of Jesus Christ, the vast size of the posited com-
munity results in an individualized ethic. In Confession and the Lords
Supper, the exposition of Pauls communal imagery is put in a subsidi-
ary position, acting as a support to his foregoing individualized ethic.
This discussion has not been meant to demonstrate that Luther
eschewed communal language or imagery in his Eucharistic theology,
or even to show that one could not derive a communal ethic from
Lutheran Eucharistic theology. Rather, my intention has been to prove
that Kellers symbolic understanding of the Eucharist creates condi-
tions considerably more favorable to such an approach than does
Luthers theology, which presumes a Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist and emphasizes gift and reception. For listeners disposed to
favor a Eucharistic theology that reflected or buttressed communal, or
more specifically congregational or collectivist, values, a sermon like
Kellers likely would have resonated more strongly than would have
one modeled on Luthers theology. No examples of the sermons of the
Lutheran pastors from this period in Augsburg survive. However, we
have already pointed to the availability of Luthers treatises and ser-
mons on the Eucharist in Augsburg. So, if we posit Luthers sermons as
their model, a picture emerges of an approach rejected by many as
insufficiently congregational in favor of the one proposed by Keller.92
92
We know that there was sustained contact personal contact between Luther and
the Lutheran preachers in Augsburg, Johannes Frosch, Stephan Agricola, and some-
times Urbanus Rhegius. The relationship between Luther and Frosch seems to have
been especially close. It will be recalled that Luther stayed with Frosch during his stay
in Augsburg in October 1518, and that Frosch journeyed to Wittenberg shortly there-
after to receive his doctorate in theology. When, at the end of 1526, the situation
in Augsburg began to look grim for those who championed a Lutheran understand-
ing of the Eucharist, it was to Frosch that Luther wrote, encouraging him to stand
firm. He mentions some unpreserved correspondence from Frosch that he has in his
michael keller 119
Keller makes most explicit his view that a tension exists between a
recognition of Christs physical presence in the Eucharist and an
emphasis on communal aspects of the celebration when he discusses
the meaning of Jesus statement from Matthew 28:20: Lo, I am with
you always, to the close of the age. Keller accuses the priests of believ-
ing that after they say their five words (i.e., the words of institution)
over the bread, Christs body enters the bread. Then, they place it in an
ornate sacrament house, and thus have Christ with them always.93
Keller maintains that Jesus was not referring in this statement to his
physical body, which was born of the Virgin Mary, or his clarified body,
which he received after his resurrection. Rather, claims Keller, when
Christ left this earth, he wanted to erect another body, which body is
all those who believe in Christ Jesusin these do Christ and the Father
choose to dwell, etc.94 Kellers position is that Christ is not present
in that wafer manipulated and guarded by the priest. Instead, he has
left his presence here in the institution of the church collectively and
its members individually. The negative agenda, desacralizing the
wafer, sets the groundwork for the positive agenda, sacralizing the
community.
On the other hand, Keller apparently does not want his treatise
dominated by arguments against the Real Presence. The danger is that
it could end up like many of Zwinglis treatises, in which one finds a
communal interpretation of the Eucharist, that is, if one can wade
through a vast amount of dense material consisting of intellectual
objections to the doctrine of the Real Presence.95 Kellers symbolic
possession, and informs Frosch that he is writing a book to declare his faith regarding
the Sacrament (That These Words of Christ This is my Body etc., Still Stand Firm
Against The Fanatics) (WA, Br 4:124). Agricola took part in the Margburg conference
on the side of the Lutherans (WA, Br 5:154, l. 22). During the Diet of Augsburg in
1530, Luther asks Justus Jonas to greet Rhegius, Frosch, and Agricola for him (WA, Br
5:501, ll. 5354). Finally, in November 1530, after the expulsion of the Protestant
preachers in the wake of the emperors arrival in Augsburg, Agricola writes to Luther
on behalf of himself and Frosch. He requests that, if the Augsburg city council does not
invite them back, Luther intercede with the elector of Saxony to find them a position
in that territory (WA, Br 5:666). For more on Frosch and Agricola, see Roth,
Reformationsgeschichte, vol 1, passim. This level of sustained personal contact, espe-
cially in the case of Frosch, increases the likelihood that they would have put Luthers
model sermons to use.
93
Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525, f3r.
94
wlcher leyb / seyn alle die in Christum Jesum glaubenin disen will Christus
vnnd der vatter wonen rc. (Ibid., f2v).
95
An example of this approach is found Zwinglis February 1526 treatise Eine klare
Unterrichtung vom Nachtmahl Christi. In his first Eucharistic treatise in the German
120 chapter three
understanding of the Eucharist is tied up with his communal vision,

but he does not want to allow polemical arguing over doctrine to side-
track his broader agenda. As a result, he prefers throughout the treatise
to assert and assume a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist rather
than to argue for it at length.
In a contemporaneous treatise, Ain Schne vnderweysung vnd leer /
zubetrachten das Nachtmal vnsers lieben herren Jhesu Christi durch die
warhafftige liebe zu got Vnd dem nchsten eingepflantzt / nach den
worten vnd Beuelch Christi / Durch Matheum Frey / Ain sndiger hrt
seiner Schflin,96 Keller, writing under the pseudonym Mattheus Frey,
is willing to discuss briefly the mode of Christs presence in the Lords
Supper. Keller maintains that in the Lords Supper, Christ offers in the
Word and through his grace in the Spirit his invisible natural mortal
body, which the communicant is able to receive in faith.97 Moreover, he
concedes indirectly that ones sins can be purified in the partaking of
the Lords Supper.98
This understanding corresponds with the interpretation put for-
ward in Luthers 1523 treatise, The Adoration of the Sacrament, where
he writes that the Word brings with it everything of which it speaks,
namely, Christ with his flesh and blood and everything that he is and
has.99
language, Zwingli explains that he wrote the tract so that, among other reasons, der
gemain, einvaltig Christ die warheit selbs erlernen mcht (ZW 4, 790:15). The edition
of this treatise published, for instance, by Christoph Froschauer in Zurich in 1526,
contains 98 pages of text. However, the common, simple Christian will find no refer-
ence to the communal implications of a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist until
the ninety-third page of text (Khler, Fiche 912913, Nr. 2269, f4r). Before reaching
that point the reader will have encountered a discussion of Lutheran, Roman Catholic,
and Erasmian errors regarding the mode of Christs presence in the Eucharist, the
proper way to understand Christs two natures, the different types of biblical metaphor,
and a series of biblical and ecclesiastical passages that prove that Christ is not corpore-
ally present in the Eucharist. In the last six pages of text Zwingli does devote a few
paragraphs to the communal significance of the communion meal, writing, for exam-
ple, Dann wenn ir die dancksagung mit dem kelch unnd brot begond, da ir sy mit
inander essend und trinckend, bedtend ir, das ir ein lychnam und ein brot sygind,
namlich der lychnam, die kilch Christi (ZW 4, 860; see also Khler, Fiche 913, Nr.
2269, g2r). These considerations were, however, largely overridden by Zwinglis more
pressing polemical agenda. Hence, they tended to receive relatively little treatment.
Keller, for his part, saved his polemics for other, and, in his case, certainly more effec-
tive, venues, which will be discussed below.
96
Khler, Fiche 1204 Nr. 3046 (hereafter Keller, Schne vnderweysung).
97
Ibid., a4v.
98
Ibid., b1r.
99
LW 36:278; WA 11:433, 2528.
michael keller 121
Further, this characterization of the nature of Christs presence in

the Eucharist corresponded closely to the prevailing state of thinking
on the Eucharist among Lutheran preachers in southern Germany, as
evinced by the Syngramma Suevicum. Although published by Johannes
Brenz in 1526, its contents were worked out in Schwabisch Hall by
fourteen Lutheran theologians in October 1525. A negative response
made to overtures from Oecolampadius in his treatise De genuine ver-
borum domini, the document argues that when God presents himself
in the Word, he offers all his gifts too. These gifts include the true cor-
poreal body and blood of Christ, enclosed in the Word and received by
all who grasp and believe them.100
In May 1528, Keller offered another expansive interpretation of
Christs presence in the Lords Supper in his treatise, Ain Christlicher /
grndtlicher / au Gttlicher hayliger schrifft / bericht / dess Herren
Nachtmal wirdig zu Empfahen / den schwachen vnd guthertzigen aufs
krtzest zusamen bracht.101 He writes that the Lords Supper has
become, for the believers alone (as heard above), a sacrament and a
mystery of the true body and blood of Christ (which is thereby truly
eaten through their faith). Further, he writes that whoever receives the
sacrament in firm faith and trust, eats and drinks the body and the
blood of Christ through his faith as food for his soul, as was heard and
taught above.102 The characterization of the Eucharist as a mystery is
not typical of Luther, but is common in the writings of, among others,
Oecolampadius. In De genuine verborum domini and in a letter to
Zwingli also from 1525, he argues for a spiritual eating of the flesh of
Christ in faith, and maintains that the body of Christ in mysterio is
present cum virtue et benedictione.103
Whatever the precise nature of Kellers views on the Real Presence,
and whoever his influences were, the symbolicist nature of his public
statements was clear enough to attract the appellation of Zwinglian
from friend and foe alike. During the Diet of Augsburg he was gener-
ally considered to represent the Zwinglian position over against the
100
Khler, Zwingli und Luther, 126135.
101
Khler, Fiche 1655, Nr. 4268.
102
allain den glaubigen (wie oben gehrt) ain Sacrament vnd gehaimnu dess
waren leybs vnnd bluts Christi (so darbey durch iren glauben warhafftig niessen)
worden ist.; ess vnd trinck er den leyb vnd das blut Christi / durch seinen
glauben / zur spey / seiner seel / wie ober gehrt vnd gelernet ist (Keller, Christlicher
bericht, b5r-b5v).
103
Khler, Zwingli und Luther, 121, 124125.
122 chapter three
Saxon and Augsburg Lutherans. Mathis Pfarrer, writing to the

Strasbourg city secretary Peter Butz on June 2, 1530, characterizes
Keller as being of Zwinglis opinion, noting also that he drew the larg-
est crowd of people.104 On June 7, Pfarrer reports to Butz that Isleben,
that is, the preacher Johann Agricola, schoolmaster of Eisleben and
part of the retinue of the Saxon elector, was preaching against those of
the Zwinglian opinion, among whom Keller was included. Agricola
asserted that they not only rejected the presence of Christ in his words,
but also wanted to get rid of Christ altogether.105
As to our knowledge of Kellers relationship with Zwingli, we are
aware that Zwingli wrote a letter of consolation on September 17, 1526,
to Keller after he had suffered a heart attack.106 All indications are that
Zwingli and Keller had been in prior contact. He addresses Keller
familiarly as mi Michal and shows some acquaintance with Kellers
teaching, declaring, You vigorously taught others that this world must
be despised, and that adversity is to be born with equanimity. Now
may you live out what you have taught.107 Further, Zwingli does not
justify his initiation of the correspondence as he does, for example, in
his first (and, as far as we know, last) letter to Kellers colleague Johannes
Frosch on June 16, 1524.108
Huberinus also attests to Kellers relationship with the Swiss. He
writes that Keller had support from Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and
the Swiss, from whom he was often strengthened by correspondence
and treatises.109 Indeed, Huberinus claims that it was from Zwingli
himself that Keller had suckled his poisonous teaching. Apparently,
Kellers most frequently articulated argument against a Real Presence
was Zwinglis common proof that Christ had ascended to heaven, to
the right hand of God, and so could not be in the Sacrament. For it
would contravene his human nature to be in two places simultane-
ously.110 Further, Keller was forced to temporarily leave Augsburg in
104
Hans Virck, ed., Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der
Reformation, vol. 1, 15171530, Urkunden und Akten der Stadt Strassburg (hereafter
Virck, Politische Correspondenz) (Strasbourg: Karl J. Trbner Verlag, 1882), nr. 29,
p. 448.
105
Ibid., nr. 734, p. 451.
106
ZW, 527, pp. 715716.
107
Docuisti alios strenue mundum esse negligendum adversaque mediocriter fer-
enda; nunc experiris, quid docueris (ZW 8, 527, p. 716, ll. 1516).
108
ZW 340, p. 197, ll. 310.
109
Huberinus, Relationen, 16.
110
Ibid., 15.
michael keller 123
the summer of 1530; he fled southwest to Memmingen. During this

time he may have been able to make the personal acquaintance of
Zwingli.
Kellers communalist message with its symbolic underpinning must
now be placed in an even larger framework. For Kellers goal (which
formed the source of his appeal) was to flesh out the contours of an
authentically civic lay religion, the interlocking components of which
were anti-clericalism, anti-sacerdotalism, and communalism, or, more
specifically, congregationalism. Anti-clericalism is the negative part of
the message. It defines the old religion as a system of schemes perpe-
trated by ecclesiastical scoundrels and crooks in order to perpetuate
their power and authority and fleece their flocks. Once the old reli-
gious leaders have been dethroned, anti-sacerdotalism seeks to block
new ones from arising in their place. Its essence is anti-mediational
and egalitarian and claims for all believers direct access to God and his
truth. Communalism becomes the outworking of anti-sacerdotalism,
defining the church as an essentially horizontal network of supporting
relationships. The locus of spiritual authority resides in the community
as a whole.111
Keller is unremitting in his anti-clericalism. He characterizes the
endowment of masses, foundations, and chapels for the purpose of
sacrificing Christ as a geldstrick (a moneymaking scheme) of the clergy.
He declares, They have created such a money making scheme out of it
that one would have to be a swift bird not to leave them some feathers
behind.112 The comical image of the swift bird trying to avoid getting
plucked by the clergy drives home the point about their rapacity and
underscores the position that their theology has no legitimacy, being
nothing more than a ruse to pluck the laity.
Further, Keller attacks the clergy for claiming that their prayers
in the mass had special efficacy. Again, he dismisses their theological
position as a mere tactic for making money, calling them bettverkaufer,
or prayer hawkers.113 The arguments also shade over to the anti-
sacerdotal position when Keller lambastes the clergy for attempting to
111
The alternate answer to the question of where to locate spiritual authority after
the rejection of the hierarchy as an organizing principle is the path of spiritualism,
which places all religious authority firmly and solely in the hands of the individual.
Keller stays clear of this option.
112
Sy haben ein slchen geltstrick darau gemacht / Das ein geschwinder vogel
gewesen wer / Der inen nicht federn gelassen hette (Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525,
d1r).
113
Ibid., d3r.
124 chapter three
monopolize the right to pray. Then, in a communalist tone, emphasiz-

ing the ties of love and duty, which join together the community, he
claims that Paul and Christ commanded us to pray for each other; this
obligation does not belong to the clergy alone.114 Clearly these compo-
nents of lay religion cannot be separated discretely from one another,
but function together to form a new system.
Kellers anti-clerical vituperations reach a crescendo as he rails
against the clergys misuse of the words of institution, or of the
Testament of Christ. These words were intended to offer the greatest
comfort and confidence to the believer. To the clergy, Keller issues the
charge:
But you misuse the words of the Testament, arrogantly interpreting them
however it suits you, and not as a Testament of Christ but as a merchants
chest and a siege engine. With these words you venture to feed your bel-
lies, and indeed with them you have conquered lands and people, prop-
erty, and possessions, although Christ finally left these words only as a
food for the soul, as has already been sufficiently demonstrated.115
The claim that the clergy use the words of the Testament as a siege
work proceeds a step beyond the more commonplace claim that they
used the words as a sort of merchants chest, which they could dip into
to fill their bellies.116 For in this case, Keller charges the clergy with
overt belligerence and lust for conquest. They use their so-called words
of institution, by which they transform the bread and wine into the
body and blood of Christ, to take control of everything in sight, becom-
ing masters over people, lands, and material goods. Keller asserts here
that the power to make Christ available to the Christian church, and
to thereby control access to the divine presence, formed the very foun-
dation of the clergys wide-ranging power and control in their society.
114
Ibid., 1525, d3r. Characteristically, Keller identifies himself with the laity, refer-
ring to them as us and the clergy as you.
115
Aber ir mybrauchet sy [the words of the Testament] dann ir handelets nach
eweren mutwillen / vnd nicht fr ein Testament Christi / sonder fr ein kauffmans-
chatz / vnd fr ein handtwerck / bey wlchen worten / ir eweren bauch zuernoren
vndersteet / Ja land vnd lewt / gut vnd hab darbey erobert so doch Christus dise wort
allein zu der Seele spey zu letz gelassen hatt / wie oben genug anzeyget ist (Ibid.,
Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525, d3v-d4r).
116
For the definition of Handwerk as Belagerungsmaschine, see Christa Baufeld,
Kleines frhneuhochdeutsches Wrterbuch, (Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996,
120).
michael keller 125
Keller exposes this power as illegitimate because it is built on fraudu-

lent claims whose only purpose is to exploit and conquer the laity. It
amounts to a clarion call from Keller to his audience to reject the spir-
itual leadership of the grasping clergy as well as their theological sys-
tem, itself no more than a tool to serve their rapacious ends, the center
of which system is the doctrine of the Real Presence.
Related to the issue of anti-clericalism is anti-sacerdotalism. Keller
clearly lays out the view that there is no spiritual hierarchy in the
Christian church. All Christians by virtue of their faith are ordained to
the priesthood directly by God and have the same rights, freedoms,
and access to God. The clergy, remarks Keller, call themselves priests
and us laity. However, the Apostle Peter makes clear that all those
who have faith in Christ are priests.117 He continues:
Thus, not only those with shaved heads and who are smeared with oil
and anointed have faith. We too have faith, who havent paid for any
smearing and anointing. For we have a more exalted suffragan bishop
than you. Yours is mortal and is from men; ours, however, is eternal and
from God. He has consecrated and sanctified us through his death, and
anointed us with the grace of the Holy Spirit through our faith.118
Keller asserts that our priesthood is the only valid one, since we,
that is, the laity with whom he associates himself, are ordained directly
by God, unlike the priests, who are ordained by men.
The two most flagrant violations of the principle of a common
priesthood, as Keller calls it, occur directly within the context of the
Eucharistic celebration: first, that the laity are forbidden to receive the
cup, and second, that only the priest can celebrate the Eucharist. Keller
draws a direct connection between the withholding of the cup and the
attempt of the clergy to monopolize the priesthood, namely, that they
include themselves alone in the priesthood and leave everyone else out
(sich allein hinein schlossen / vnd vns heraussen liessen). He asserts that
the tactic of withholding the bread and the wine from the laity is purely
117
Keller, Ettlich Sermones, 1525, e1r.
118
So glauben nicht allein die [, die] beschoren Kpff haben vnd geschmirbt vnd
gesalbet seyen / sonder auch wir / die der keynes vom schmirber vnd salber vmbs gellt
kaufft haben / dann wir haben vil ein Edlern weychbischoff dann sy / Irer ist sterblich
vnd vom menschen / vnserer aber ewig / vnd von Gott / der vns hat gewycht vnd ge-
heyliget / durch sein todt vnd gesalbet mit der gnaden des heiligen geystes / durch
glauben (Ibid., e1v).
126 chapter three
an attempt to divide and tear asunder the proper common priest-

hood.119 It is the public, symbolic declaration of the clergys divisive
theological position.
Although Kellers emphasis in this section is on undermining the
clergys sacerdotalism, with its notions of mediation and hierarchy, he
does not pass up the opportunity to lament the impact of this manifes-
tation of sacerdotalism on the Eucharist. By giving the wine to some
and not to others, the Eucharistic celebration becomes divided.120 For
Keller, such a policy strikes at the heart of his understanding of the
Eucharist as a communal meal that proclaims unity and commonality.
The principle of sacerdotalism, which maintains distinctions in rank
among the various members of the community, and which is instanti-
ated in the withholding of the cup from some, can have no place in his
Eucharistic celebration, just as it can have no place in his vision of a lay
religion.
Keller now turns to refute the arguments that the priests use to
maintain this ritual that testifies to their exalted position in the com-
munity. He has already attacked the principle undergirding it by
declaring a common priesthood of all believers. Now he addresses the
ostensible cause for this ritual distinction. The majority of the argu-
ments proposed by the clergy contain a presupposition of the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Keller applies his symbolic under-
standing of the Eucharist as a solvent to these arguments.
Keller first refutes the argument that the laity should not receive the
cup because they might spill some of the contents and cause dishonor
to the blood of Christ. Keller retorts that Christ has already shed
enough blood and does not need to shed it any more.121 By this he
means that Christ shed his blood once on the cross and has not shed it
again into the cup. If some were, perchance, to spill, no dishonor would
come to Christ.
Keller also replies to the argument that the laity have beards, and if
they drank from the cup, a drop of wine could be left hanging there,
again, presumably, dishonoring Christ. He responds that no dishonor
comes to Christ if some of the wine remains hanging in the beard. For
Christ comes neither into the beard nor into the bowels (the lower part
of the large intestine). Rather, he has chosen to live in a different place,
119
Ibid., e1r.
120
Ibid., e1r.
121
Ibid., e2v
michael keller 127
by which Keller means heaven.122 Again, Keller desacralizes the cup by

arguing at least against a corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
thereby clearing the way for its general distribution.
It is no coincidence that the sacerdotalist camp drew upon an under-
standing of a corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist to defend
the withholding of the cup from the laity, while the anti-sacerdotal
Keller rebutted them with a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist.
For the sacerdotalists, it was of fundamental importance to assert the
ability to imbue objects with divine presence and power, the control-
ling of which objects, according to Keller, enhances their status as
mediators. Sacerdotalism and an acceptance of the immanence of
divine power in spiritual objects, at least in the Catholic system, went
hand in hand. The willingness to give the body highlighted the clergys
role as effective mediators; the decision to withhold the cup signaled
their power to control access to the divine.
For Keller, who was intent on stripping the clergy of their sacerdotal
pretensions, desacralizing the objects over which they exercised con-
trol was a significant step towards his objective of eliminating their
mediational role. The cup must be given because the people are also
priests. It must also be given because it contains no special spiritual
power that could be compromised if widely distributed without exact-
ing supervision. Both components of this argument undermine the
mediational claims of the clergy.
Keller was determined to prevent people from focusing on the ele-
ments. First, as we have already seen, it distracts from the communal
quality of the meal. Second, it enhances the authority of the priest,
whose power exists in inverse proportion to that of the community.
Encapsulating both of these views, he writes, He says, take, eat etc.
and not take and lock it up in a ciborium and place it in every parish
church so that it will always be available, as though the power lay in the
bread or in him who speaks the word and distributes the bread.123 The
power lies in the community and its members, not in the clergy and
their supposedly divinely empowered objects.
As Keller views the situation, the laity have made a Faustian bargain
with the clergy. They traditionally have agreed to concede to the clergy
122
Ibid., e3r.
123
Er spricht nemet hin esset etc. Vnd nicht nemet hin vnd sperret es in ein
hewle / vnd setzt das in alle Pfarrkirchen / auff dz es alweg bereyt sey: Als ob da lege
die krafft im brot / oder in dem / der das wort redt vnd das brot darreychet (Ibid., f3r).
128 chapter three
broad mediational powers over them by accepting the clergys claim to

be able to endow the bread and wine with massive spiritual power. In
exchange, the laity have requested that the clergy, on occasion, allow
them to use the host to alleviate some of their more mundane con-
cerns. For this reason Keller rails against the use of the host to ward off
storms, floods, fire, hail, and other natural disasters, and to protect the
civic community and its crops.124 Keller realizes that he is treading on
sensitive territory when he addresses this subject. He maintains that
the common ignorant man must be instructed in this matter, and that
he does not want to offend anybody, but rather to improve him.125
However, weighed against these purported benefits, one must consider
what one gives up. Of central significance for Keller is the control of
spiritual power permitted the priest under this system, and thus the
control over the religious lives of the laity. They may indeed receive the
host to bless their crops, but only at the priests good pleasure. Control
of Gods presence is symbolized most dramatically for Keller, as indi-
cated in the quotation above, by the act of locking up Christs body in
the sacrament house until such time as the priest may have need of
it.126 Kellers plea to the laity is for them to realize that they have made
a bargain detrimental to their interests, where they lose much more
than they might theoretically gain. They must tear their eyes away
from the priest and his sacred objects, refusing whatever dollops of
spiritual benefit he may offer them, and find, instead, within them-
selves and their community the locus of Gods presence, grace, and
power.
The second sacerdotal claim of the clergy is that they, as the succes-
sors of the Apostles, have an exclusive right to celebrate the Eucharist
and to consume the elements alone. Keller counters that Christ gave
everyone the right to celebrate and partake in the Eucharist, regardless
of sex, religious vocation, or social status.
But Paul comes and says that he has received from the Lord how the Lord
proceeded on the night when he was betrayed, and takes account of nei-
ther Apostles nor Apostlesses, not monks or priests, neither cowls nor
tonsures, neither wooden shoes nor gloves. Rather, he speaks directly at
the group and gives everyone power to celebrate the mass (on which you
124
Ibid., e4v-f1r.
125
Ibid., e4r.
126
See also Ibid., e4v.
michael keller 129
base your reputation) in the Lords Supper, and says, When you come
together, you should eat the bread of the Lord, etc. 127
However, before his audience concludes that Keller really intends to
open up the celebration of the Eucharist to all comers, he qualifies his
position in the following paragraph. He responds in the affirmative to
the unstated question as to whether there must not be a servant who
distributes the elements and announces the testament of the Lord. He
refers to the servants whom Paul ordered Timothy to appoint, and he
expresses the wish that his opponents would model themselves after
the descriptions of a servant in the New Testament.128
Why, then, did Keller take the principles of anti-sacerdotalism and
communal egalitarianism to their logical extreme and then back off ?
One possible answer is that he wanted to safeguard the principle that
ministers are in no way ontologically distinct from the congregation.
They are not descended from the Apostles, and thus endowed with
special powers or virtues. Rather, New Testament ministers are mem-
bers of the community, chosen to fulfill certain necessary functions.
It could also reflect part of his attempt to institutionalize and har-
ness the sectarian sacramentarians whom he has brought into his con-
gregation. Since they were inclined to turn away entirely from the
external forms of the church, it is likely that radical ideas of this sort
might have been in circulation. Keller was very cleverly able to con-
cede their point in principle (and in the meantime score a blow to his
sacramentalist opponents), while rejecting its practical application.
For all his sincerely held anti-sacerdotalism and communalism, Keller
appears here also as a firm believer in the institutional church, with its
offices and rituals. The key to his success in Augsburg lay in his ability
to hold together these two principles, naturally in tension with each
other.
Keller was a powerful exponent of a lay religion that eschewed hier-
archy and mediators and promised direct access to God, and that
emphasized a mutually supportive, largely egalitarian community held
127
Paulus aber kompt vnd spricht er hab das von den herren entpfangen / wie der
herr in der nacht da er verraten war gehandelt hat & vnd sicht weder Apostel noch
Apostolin nicht Mnch noch pfaffen / kappen noch blatten weder holtzschuch noch
hentschuh an / sonder redet drr in hauffen hinein / vnd gibt yder man gewalt / die
Mess darauff ir euch ryemet im Nachtmal zu halten / vnd Spricht / so ir zusamen
kompt / solt ir des HERREN brot essen etc. (Ibid., d1v-d2r).
128
Ibid., d2r.
130 chapter three
together by public professions and acts of brotherly love. Central to

this program was the promotion of a symbolic interpretation of the
Eucharist, serving as it did to disempower the clergy and breathe life
into the communalist potential of the Eucharistic celebration. The
appeal of this message among the artisanal groups who formed the
natural constituency of his church is evinced by the crowds that flocked
to listen to his sermons. Furthermore, his presence was assuring to the
city council, whose main concern was keeping public order. His dedi-
cation to the institutional church would have assured them of his fun-
damental stability. Moreover, he would have been credible enough to
reach out to some of the more radical elements of the city and bring
them within the institutional fold.
In 1526 Keller reprinted his Etlich Sermones, corrected, improved,
and expanded. Going through the text of his 1525 treatise he added, at
regular intervals, supporting arguments, additional scriptural proofs,
and more marginal notations. In none of these did he depart from or
revise his position of 1525. The last fourteen pages of the 1526 treatise,
however, are an entirely new creation. They demonstrate that impor-
tant changes had taken place in the Augsburg community in the inter-
vening time and that these changes had impacted Kellers own
thinking.
Keller has become more concerned about the increasing prolifera-
tion of sects, formed over the proper interpretation and celebration
of the Eucharist. He reports that some sects claim to eat the body of
Christ as it hung on the cross, some as the disciples ate it, and others
the clarified or resurrection body of Christ as it went through the
closed door in the upper room where the disciples had gathered.
Indeed, there were as many sects as there were opinions. What they all
had in common, however, was that they wanted to eat the body of
Christ.129 Clearly, Kellers definition of sect did not extend to those
groups who maintained a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. He
is describing a proliferation of opponents in the city, all with a slightly
different opinion, but all opposed to his program at the Franciscan
church.
129
Ettlich Sermones von dem Nachtmal Christi / Geprediget durch M.Michaelen
Keller / Predicanten bey den Parfuessern zu Augspurg. An vil orten so im Ersten truck
vbersehen ist Corrigiert / gepesseret vnd gemeeret (hereafter Keller, Ettlich Sermones,
1526) (Khler, Fiche 993 / Nr. 2522, g3r).
michael keller 131
The leaders of this quarrel maintained that they ate bread and wine,
and in the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ.130 Further,
they asserted that the essential corporeal body of Christ must be eaten,
not with the teeth, but rather in faith as a food for the soul.131 According
to Keller, these individuals called his teaching heretical and Karlstadtian.
They criticized and hereticated his sermons and made it so that in
some parts of the city one was not allowed to sell or read them. From
the description that he provides of people who rejected transsubstan-
tiation, affirmed a corporeal eating of the body of Christ, and charged
that he follows Karlstadt, it is clear that Keller is describing the consoli-
dation of a vociferous Lutheran faction in the city, which was not afraid
to challenge his power. Keller appeals to these factious people to cease
clinging to and championing a particular person, no matter how well
known he may be (read, Luther). Rather, they should search the
Scriptures and pray to God for understanding.132
Furthermore, there seemed to be a fair amount of confusion, or at
least diversity, among the citizens of Augsburg regarding changes in
the Eucharistic liturgy. As Keller characterized it, some wanted the
mass, some wanted the mass read in German, some wanted what they
called the Lords Supper, but with much of the filth of the papal mass
still clinging to it. One person comes from hearing a German mass,
another from a so-called Lords Supper, and they dispute over which
celebration was the proper one. Another who had determined his pref-
erence in Eucharistic services based on his own personal whim asked
Keller how he could presume to teach the proper celebration of the
Lords Supper, rebuking so many learned men and doctors when he
was not a doctor himself?133 The foregoing demonstrates again, if such
a demonstration is still necessary, that the question of the proper inter-
pretation and celebration of the Eucharist was a hot topic and a matter
of considerable debate among the laity on the streets of Augsburg.
Keller, for his part, undertakes to instruct these factious people in
the proper celebration of the Lords Supper and in the process shows
that his views have advanced considerably since 1525. First, it seems
that by 1526 he is celebrating the Lords Supper without a consecrated
130
Ibid., g4v.
131
Ibid., h1r.
132
Ibid., h1r.
133
Ibid., h2r. Keller, it will be recalled, only attained the degree Master of Arts.
132 chapter three
altar, without candles, without clerical vestments, without making the

cross or other signs over the host and cup, and without pronouncing
blessings or other words over them.134 This is the fulfillment of his
vision in 1525to create a communal meal where the priest is not
exalted above the congregation, but all are equal; where Christ is not
recognized in the bread and wine, but in the gathered religious com-
munity. He defends his policy in the following way:
Thus Paul did not choose a consecrated church or a consecrated altar,
etc. Rather [he chose] a place where they could come together with each
other. Thus, he makes a priest of everyone in the congregation who
desires to celebrate and hold such a Lords Supper.135
By this Keller means that all in the congregation are priests who are
themselves able to take the bread and wine and proclaim the death of
the Lord to each other.
Keller takes this argument further, arguing from 1 Corinthians 10
that when the congregation comes together, each person has the power
to celebrate the Lords Supper and eat of the bread and drink of the cup
individually, without anyone offering or distributing the bread to
another person.136 Each person was to bring from home as much bread
and wine as necessary to celebrate the Lords Supper, to consume it,
and thereby to proclaim to each other the death of the Lord. Nowhere
in Paul is it found that someone should pronounce the words of the
Testament of Christ, the so-called words of consecration, over the
elements.137
We do not know whether Keller ever attempted to put into practice
this radically egalitarian, anti-sacerdotal Eucharistic celebration, where
every last hint of distinction within the community and the mere sug-
gestion of clerical control over the reception of the elements or of par-
ticipation in the service was eliminated. Further, why he embraces this
position in 1526 when he had backed away from it in 1525 is also
unclear. Perhaps he had come under increasing pressure from his con-
gregation to follow through on his own principles.
134
Ibid., h2v, h3v.
135
So erwlt hie Paulus kain geweychte Kirche / kain geweychten Altar etc. Sonder
den ort / da sy mit ainander zusamen mgen kommen / vnd macht also in der gemain
all die zu pfaffen / die slliches Nachtmal Christi zu begeen vnd halten begeren (Ibid.,
h2v).
136
Ibid., h3r.
137
Ibid., h3r.
michael keller 133
Whatever the reason, this sketch of Kellers ideal Eucharistic cele-

bration expresses in its purest form his vision of a civic lay religion. The
role of the minister is made irrelevant as members declare to each
other the death of Christ and take the initiative upon themselves to
provide each other with bread and wine. The elimination of hierarchy,
differentiation, and mediation, however, does not imply that the laity
need to subsume their individuality into an undifferentiated commu-
nity. Rather, it empowers each individual to take the initiative within
that community to perform vital religious functions. As Keller says,
everyone in the congregation is made a priest.
Finally, Keller addresses his own supporters. Up to this point, he had
focused on the growing welter of opposing voices. It might cause one
to wonder if he still had any vocal adherents left in his own camp. Not
to worry. He urges:
And further, for the honor of God, will all of those who up till now have
spoken so inappropriately of the Lords Supper, and in the presence of the
weak have referred to the bread of the Lord (as the Holy Spirit had des-
ignated it) with mocking words not contained in the Scripture, like a
bakers bread, a baked Lord God, a bread basket, and many similar slan-
derous words, please desist from such behavior.138
Keller clearly agrees with the theological convictions standing behind
these remarks. Such individuals never received criticism in Kellers
earlier attacks on the factious people. These people are not factious;
they are his supporters, and adherents of the true message of the
Scripture regarding the Eucharist. Their problem is not that they are
wrong but that they are causing undue offense with their mocking
statements.
Kellers concern about the weak is telling. It is a remark characteris-
tic of someone still trying to win over wavering people. Keller is
revealed here as still engaging in a delicate balancing act. On the one
hand, he wants to keep his hardcore supporters loyal to him and incor-
porated in his congregation. For this reason he keeps criticism of their
behavior rather mild. On the other hand, he wants to prevent them
from sabotaging his plan of appealing to a wide segment of lay society.
138
Bitte auch weytter durch die Eere Gottes / alle die so biher von dem Nachtmal
des HERREN so vngeschickt geredt haben / vnd mit spottworten ausserhalb der
schrifft / des HERREN Brot (wie es der hailig gayst genenndt hatt) ain Becken brot /
ain bachen Herrgot / ain Brotkorb / vnd dergleychen vil lesterwort / vor den schwachen
genennet haben / das sy dauon absteen wllen (Ibid., h4r).
134 chapter three
If the weak are offended by the harsh or sarcastic comments of indi-

viduals associated with Keller or his congregation, he may lose them to
his opponents.
An incident that took place at the congregation of St. George in June
of the following year indicate the tensions that could break out in a
congregation where people with differing positions on the Eucharist
mingled among each other. During a service where the Eucharist was
being celebrated according to Evangelical form, Katherina Voglin, an
Episcopal servant, entered the church and began to cause a distur-
bance. As the bread was being distributed, conflict broke out. According
to a letter Voglin sent to the city council, she had only entered the
church out of curiosity over how a Lutheran Eucharist was cele-
brated.139 When some people recognized that she was not Lutheran,
they approached her and demanded that she leave. They threatened to
drag her out by her hair and insisted that she should be put on the pil-
lory.140 Eventually, she left. Witnesses questioned by the city council tell
a different story of a woman who approached the altar where the bread
was being distributed by the minister and, before departing, made a
series of mocking, derisive comments about the elements.141 The city
council believed the witnesses and expelled her from the city. They also
rejected her later request that she be allowed to return.142
Although conflicting reports make it impossible to determine who
the instigator was, it is likely that by the end of the exchange, provoca-
tive remarks were exchanged on both sides. As the Eucharist was a
sacred meal that defined and constituted the community, conflicts
could develop over who did and who did not belong. The documents
indicate that some members of the St. Georg congregation sought to
exclude from the meal those who did not share their identity. Conflict
could also arise if outsiders sought to delegitimize the meal. Striking at
the heart of the communal identity, such challenges could meet with
139
Als yetzundt nach Ostern ain Lutherischer prediger zu sand Jorigen zu Augspurg
seinen lutherischen khunden anzaigt hett / er welte inen vnsers herren nachtmal
geben / pin ich als ain ainfeltige magt / angesehen das mein herr dazumal nit anhaim
was / auch hinein gangen vnd wollen sehen wie es zugang mit solhem nachtmal
(StAA Literaliensammlung 24 June 1527, 168). This collection of documents includes
a letter from the parish of St. Georg, the Urgichten (interrogation records) of witnesses
to the conflict, and two letters from Katherina Voglin to the city council. See Wandel,
Eucharist, 80.
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid., 164165.
142
Erkent das sie daussen bleiben soll (Ibid., 168).
michael keller 135
forceful response. The documents record that Voglins challenge to the

congregants Lutheran ceremony was met with the threat of violence
and punishment. It is precisely these sorts of divisive, distracting con-
flicts that Keller was intent on discouraging.
Kellers Polemical Program
As we have noted above, Keller avoided direct polemics against the

Real Presence. However, there is evidence that he may have fostered
certain dramatic symbolic attacks on the Eucharistic elements. At least
this is what Clemens Sender, a Benedictine monk in the Augsburg
cloister of St. Ulrich and Afra, alleged in his contemporary chronicle of
Augsburg. After accusing Keller of defaming the Mother of God, say-
ing she was no different from any other woman, preaching that one
should no more call on the saints than on a dead dog, that the mass is
neither a sacrament nor a miracle but a sign, that it would be better to
stab a man to death than to attend a mass, he charges Keller with always
preaching something new to the poor people, and so drawing them
away from the Catholic Church. And when these people saw the
Sacrament brought through the streets, they turned their backsides
to it.143
Sender records a series of incidents wherein people of Augsburg
engage in acts of derision against the Sacrament. These acts served to
publicly disempower or bring into disrepute the symbolic linchpin of
the Catholic sacramental, sacerdotal, and financial system. This ritual
desacralization asserted and ensured that no sacred powerin this
case, Christs presencewas contained in the object. It is in this light
that we can read an assault on a Corpus Christi procession in 1526.
According to Sender, during the procession a weaver ran up to a
woman processing with a burning candle and threw it on the ground.
Apparently, the woman turned against the man, threw him down,
stomped on him, and smashed his head against the ground, until,
wounded and bloody, he finally made off amid much mocking and
derision.144 Presumably, the weaver had concluded that an attack on
143
Also hat er alweg etzwas neus zu predigen gehapt und das arm volk in separirung
pracht. wa man das sacrament auff der gassen hat tragen, haben sie im das hinder kert
(Sender, Chronik, 178179).
144
Ibid., 181182. Senders point is well taken that strong opposition still existed in
Augsburg to the advance of the Evangelical movement, and in particular, to Kellers
adversarial sacramentarians.
136 chapter three
the actual Host, which was surrounded by the city leaders (bundsherrn)
and ecclesiastical figures, would have been logistically too difficult and
personally dangerous to carry out. The woman and her candle func-
tioned as an ill-chosen proxy, the attack on which was intended to
indicate his disdain for and the womans improper adoration of the
Eucharistic element.
On the day of the Feast of the Holy Cross (May 3), 1527, someone
rode a horse repeatedly back and forth in the Holy Cross church, caus-
ing offense to the feast day and to the Holy Cross itself.145 The Holy
Cross church contained the citys miraculous host Das Wunderbarliche
Gut, which had been a feature of civic life since the early thirteenth
century. This churchs feast day was also apparently a principal day on
which the fleshly host was venerated.
In another case, on Good Friday 1528, in accordance with old cus-
tom, the clergy of the church of St. Ulrich had buried a consecrated
host, contained in a ciborium, in a grave in the church, to be brought
out again on Easter. According to Sender, a man walked into the church
and declared, Shame on you, Christ, what are you doing in that little
house of fools? Then, he mockingly turned his backside to him.146 At
stake for this mocker was not the Good Friday ceremony itself but the
practice of reserving and manipulating the hosts that had been conse-
crated during the Mass. In this ceremony, the consecrated host was
identified with Christs physical body in the most literal possible way:
it took the place of the historical Jesus, buried on Good Friday, to be
raised again on Easter. The mockers main objection to the ceremony
seems to have been that it was belittling to Christ to treat him in such
a manner. His words, therefore, should not be understood as hostile to
the Christian religion, but indicative of the lack of respect to be
accorded to a Christ who would allow himself to be controlled and
locked up by the priests. The natural implication of his words was that
the real Christ would not permit himself to be so treated.
Then, after Easter of that same year, someone stole the sacra-
ment that was standing on an altar in the church of St. Anna. The city
145
An des hailigen creutztag ist ainer in hailigen Creutzkirche geritten hin und
wider, auff und ab, zu schmach dem fest und hailigen cruetz (Ibid., 185).
146
Am karfreitag, als man zu sant Ulrich nach alter gewonhait das hochwirdig sac-
rament zu dem grab in ain huslin het gesetzt, gieng ain mann hinzu, sprechend: pfue
dich, Christi, was thust da in dem narrenhuslin? und kert im spotlich das hinder
(Ibid., 196197).
michael keller 137
council offered 100 fl. to the person who identified the thief. However,
the whole matter was apparently largely scoffed at, and some even said
that the drunken monks (of the Carmelite cloister of St. Anna) had
taken it themselves.147 If we accept that this host was being displayed in
the context of the celebration of Easter, as representing Christ risen
from the dead, then this act of opposition functioned as a corollary to
the Good Friday action. It served as a protest against the attempt to
enclose and manipulate Christ by containing him in the host, a mobile
material object.
Finally, on the evening of the Feast of Corpus Christi, May 26, 1529,
as compline was being sung, a man rode into St. Ulrichs church
through the lower door, then up to and around the altar where the
Sacrament stood. Then, with great derision and laughter, he rode out
through the upper door.148
The occasions during which these five desecrations, mockeries, and
protests took placethe Corpus Christi procession, the veneration of
the fleshly host, the Good Friday burial ceremony, and the display of
resurrected body of Christ after Easterrepresented the most promi-
nent of the many occasions in Augsburg on which Christ would be
displayed in the form of the consecrated host. They were also the occa-
sions on which Christs presence under the form of the host was most
strongly identified with his natural, corporeal body. Attacks, both in
words and acts, against the use of the elements outside of the Supper
were widespread in Reformation polemics. We have seen them already,
and not only in the utterances of preachers like Keller, but also among
the laity, such as these unnamed Augsburg protesters and the Strasbourg
gardener, Clemens Ziegler. This is a puzzle, since it was often in
response to the demands of the laity that the clergy developed these
ceremonies in the first place. Now laity were voicing opposition to the
very ceremonies that they had earlier agitated for.
In Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture, Miri
Rubin traces the emergence of a lay demand for the opportunity to
gaze on the consecrated host. The elevation of the consecrated host by
the officiating cleric emerged in the twelfth century, and with it the lay
practice of sacramental viewing. Although introduced in part to fortify
147
Ibid., 197. It is noteworthy that even at this late date the Lutheran bastion of St.
Anna was still exposing the host for veneration. One, however, might suppose that the
practice was ended after this fiasco.
148
Ibid., 218.
138 chapter three
the churchs teachings on Eucharist, the act of gazing on the host

became the central component of lay participation in the mass.149 The
churchs increased emphasis on the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist elevated the status of the object in the minds of the laity, both
in terms of its potential danger and its potential power and efficacy.
This dynamic led the laity to embrace such practices as sacramental
gazing, by which they could appropriate the power of the host without
risking the harm they would incur from unworthy reception.150
The result of this dynamic was twofold. First, there is evidence that
people began to focus on the elevation in the mass, almost to the exclu-
sion of the other aspects of the ceremony.151 Second, new ceremonies
developed at the encouragement of laity that brought the visible host
out of the liturgy of mass and made its power and presence more
generally available. There is evidence that the laity reacted negatively
to attempts by the clergy to limit such extra-liturgical uses of the
sacrament.152
All of the phenomena discussed abovedisplaying consecrated
hosts, making pilgrimages to miraculous hosts, and using hosts in
extra-liturgical ceremonies like the Good Friday burial and Corpus
Christi processionsdeveloped as part of a complex process of nego-
tiation between clergy and laity. On the one hand, the clergy attempted
through a series of clearly understandable symbols and rituals to make
their teaching clear to the laity that the priest, by speaking the words of
institution, made the body of Christ truly present under the appear-
ance of bread and wine. For their part, the laity demanded these rituals
so that they could develop a Eucharistic piety independent of the mass,
spread more widely the potency of the host without running the spir-
itual risks involved in receiving communion, and apply the power of
the host to issues directly affecting their mundane lives.
Both parties secured for themselves agreement on issues of impor-
tance to them. However, it could be argued that compromise was
required on both sides, and many laity in the Reformation era would
come to see the price paid as intolerably high, repudiating the implicit
agreement. As the host moved out of the mass liturgy, and then out of
149
Rubin, Corpus, 5456.
150
Ibid., 148152.
151
Ibid., 151153.
152
Charles Zika, Hosts, Processions and Pilgrimages: Controlling the Sacred in
Fifteenth-Century Germany, Past and Present 118 (1988): 2564.
michael keller 139
the church walls, the priests lost a certain amount of control over the
interpretative framework in which the power of the host would be set.
The laity obtained both access to an object of tremendous spiritual
potency, and the opportunity to direct the focus of that power. However,
since the exclusive authority of the clergy to make Christ uniquely pre-
sent in the elements necessary for these rituals was never seriously
contested, the laity conceded to the clergy both the role of mediators
between them and the divine and an indispensable function in creat-
ing the conditions allowing the laity access to this divine power.
The contested nature of these rituals significance becomes even
more complex when we turn specifically to the Corpus Christi proces-
sions. In this instance the contestants for the meaning of this ceremony
do not belong to two undifferentiated groups, lay and clerical. As
Rubins analysis makes clear, different members of the laity would have
experienced a Corpus Christi procession in fundamentally different
ways. In the second half of the fourteenth century, guilds, fraternities,
and magistrates struggled among themselves to influence the secular
meaning of the procession to their advantage. The host functioned as
the symbolic center of power and legitimacy for the Christian com-
munity, both in its religious and civic manifestations. Civic authorities,
and the leading guilds and fraternities, appropriated the processions in
order to display and reinforce the social hierarchy. The jockeying that
went on for proximity to the host, and the history of lawsuits fought
over the issue, reveal the social importance of being represented in a
favorable way in these public displays of social dominance and
hierarchy.153
Rubin argues effectively against the view advanced by scholars such
as Mervyn James that Corpus Christi processions were rituals in which
the social wholeness of the urban body was effected as it gathered
around the symbol of the social body, the Body of Christ.154 Although
one cannot exclude the possibility that the processions functioned in
this way on some level, Rubin demonstrates that in practice the Corpus
Christi processions were displays of power, hierarchy, and dominance
more than of social unity.
It is therefore not difficult to conclude that these overt displays of
social and political power would have been experienced differently by
153
154
James, Ritual Drama.
140 chapter three
the citys disenfranchised and disaffected than by the civic elites. For
the former, such a procession would have been an all too explicit
reminder of their own lack of power and status. Therefore, when the
Augsburg weaver disrupted the Corpus Christi procession, it is not
immediately obvious whose display of power he was protesting against.
The womans veneration of the host exhibited an infuriating reverence
for the power source that both the social and ecclesiastical leaders were
employing to legitimize and reinforce their claim to rightful domi-
nance. Of course, the protester did not have to choose between one
and the other. He most likely saw them as mutually reinforcing hierar-
chies, often in conflict, but united in an effort to retain the overarching
social and religious order.
If the foregoing has demonstrated that the double-edged signifi-
cance of these rituals left open the possibility that some laity would
seek to jettison them as, on balance, detrimental to their concerns, we
have clear evidence from the Strasbourg gardener Clemens Ziegler
that some lay people in fact drew that conclusion. We digress briefly to
take a closer look at Ziegler, already mentioned above, because he
makes an excellent case study against which to test our theory regard-
ing the motives underlying these assaults on the Eucharist in Augsburg.
Ziegler expressed in writing what many lay persons articulated in
harder-to-interpret actions. Further, as we have already noted, at least
some of his writings circulated among the brethren in Augsburg,
informing their views.
For Ziegler, the confinement of Christ on the part of the priests
formed the central grievance motivating him to write his first treatise
on the Eucharist (which we will recall circulated in Augsburg), Von der
waren nyessung beyd leibs vnd bluts Christi. He declares:
Further, they question me about the greatest abuse of all to which the
body and blood of Christ is subjected, namely this, that one wants to
enclose the body and blood, although this practice has no basis in
Scripture to support it, not even a letter. For St. Paul does not teach this
practice. Rather, he says that one should distinguish the bread and wine
in the Eucharist from other foods. It is as if he said, What one eats from
the bread and drinks from the cup, or from the wine, that is the body and
blood of Christ. What one, however, does not eat and drink is simply
bread and wine.155
155
Weiter vernemen mich von den aller grsten mibruch / so mit dem leib vnd
blut Christi verhandlet wrdt. Das ist dier / das man den leib vnd das blut also wil
michael keller 141
Indeed, for Ziegler, the priest has no power to make Christ present in
the elements, even during the Eucharistic celebration. The presence of
Christ is effected by the faith of each individual communicant.
So you say, When the priest speaks the words of consecration over the
bread and the wine, then the body and the blood are immediately there.
I answer, No. For the eating of the body and blood of Christ, which
I myself do, takes place not in the words of another but perpetually in my
very own faith.156
Behind this statement is the concern on the part of Ziegler that the
clergy, by controlling the elements as well as the time and place of their
distribution, are controlling the laitys access to Christ. Consequently,
he draws the logical conclusion of his assertion that the faith of the
individual believer effects the presence of Christ, by detaching the
opportunity to eat the body and blood of Christ from the mass.
Common lay people can have unrestricted access to the body and
blood of Christ as they go about their daily tasks, if only they have faith
and reflect on Christ with a passionate love.157
ynschleissen. so man doch keinen grundt der geschrifft da von hat / ja nit einen buch-
staben. Dann sant Paulus leret vns nit also / sonder er spricht / man sols vnderschey-
dlich halten gegen der anderen spei. Als ob er sprch / was man vom brot ysset / vnd
vom kelch drincket / oder vom wein / das ist der (B4v) leib vnd blut Christi. was man
aber nit ysset vnd trinckt / das ist wein vnd brott (Ziegler, nyessung, b4r).
156
so sprichestu wann der priester die wort der benedeyung spricht / ber das brot
vnd ber den kelch so ist der leib vnnd das blut yetz stracks da / ich antwurt Nein /
dan die niessung des leibs vnd des bluts Christi / welche ich selbs thu die stat [finden]
nit in eins anderen wort sunder sey stett in meim selbs eygen glauben (Ziegler, bchli,
f1r).
157
Item die Rmer hand das blut Christi den leyen abgebrochen [by withholding
the cup] / vnd den leib Christi gebunden an zeit vnd an statt als auff die Ostern / vnd
auff etlichen festen tagen / aber die Christenliche gemein yetzt in disen zeyten / die
braucht ir Christliche freyheit in der niessung beid leibs vn bluts Christi vngebunden
an die zeit sunder frey nach der regierung des heyligen geists / nit gebunden an zeit
oder statt / sonder es sol ein yeder das gewilich wissen vnd glauben / wo vnd wann
der heilig geist in ym regiert / das er stracks niesst den leib vnd dz blut Christi / er sye
dann wo er wl / / ja sprichstu / wie kan ich aber wissen oder den geist gottes in
mir emtpinden / ich sag also wann du Christglaubiger bist yn gedenck in deinem
hertzen an die allmechtigkeit gottes / dz er dein gnediger vatter ist / der dir wol wil /
gedenck an die menschwerdung Christi Jhesu / vnd an sein bitter leiden vnd blut
vergissen vnd an seinen todt / das er ist begraben vnd am dritten tag wider auffer-
standen / vnd glauben das solches alles ist geschehen / dir zu gut das dn (sic) auch
wrst wider aufferston durch die aufferstehung Christi werdest besitzen noch disem
leben das ewige leben / wo dann solche betrachtung geschickt / vnnd in einer ynbrn-
stiger hitz vnd liebe zu gott / vnt nitt vermist mitt gedancken di zeytlichen lebens
oder der zeytlichen gter / sunder er ergibt sich dahyn das er ym will einen abbruch
thun das er mg leben in dem willen gottes / nach aller vermgligkeit seiner blden
krancken natur wo dann solchs geschicht in des menschen hertz / der mensch der sye
142 chapter three
Ziegler attempts to deflect criticism that he really wants to abolish

the eating of the body and blood under the bread and wine. He argues,
Then since a person surely can eat the body and blood of Christ at any
time through faith, why would he then not also want to eat it in the
very same faith in the Lords Supper?158 Indeed, Ziegler has no interest
in abolishing the Eucharist. His goal is really to delocalize the presence
of Christ so that the Christian community can enjoy its Christian free-
dom. The clergy has taken this away from them by constricting the
presence of Christ to certain places, times, and objects that were under
its control. Ziegler concedes without reluctance that Christs body and
blood are present in the Eucharist, as long as it is understood that they
are also present elsewhere.159
As indicated in the above quotations, Ziegler objects not only to a
mass that posited an objective presence of Christ in the elements of the
Eucharist after the words of institution are pronounced over them.
Rather, he opposes all enclosure of Christs presence in the elements of
the Eucharist, for whatever purpose it might be used. This includes
carrying Christ through the streets in processions160 and exposing him
on the altar to be worshiped,161 objections we also saw expressed among
the laity in Augsburg.
dann wo er wl / er feg dz hau er far zu acker / oder meg auff der matten / ja wann er
schon des viechs auff dem feld htet / wan solche gedancken in ym erfunden werden /
wie hye angezeigt seind / so niesset der mensch gewilich den leib vnd das blut
Christi / vnd ob schon kein priester kein altar/ noch kein esserlich zeichen nimmer
da ist / so ist doch der leib vnnd das blut Christi da / das ist on allen zweifel war / dann
die esserlichen zeichen mssen im geist genossen werden des innerlichen mensch
vnd nit im word / dann dz word oder buchstaben on den geist sol gantz vnd gar nichts
vnd ist ein todt wort (Ibid., d2r-v).
158
Dann die weil der mensch den leib vnd dz blut Christi wol kan niessen zu
aller zeit durch den glauben / warumb wolt ers dann nit auch niessen in den selben
glauben / im nachtmal Christi (Ibid., e3v).
159
Ziegler distinguishes between Christs body and his flesh. He explains, Dann
Christus hat gesprochen / das ist mein leib. Aber er hat nit geredt / wann die ostyen
bricht in vil stucken / das sein leib in einem yedem stcklin sey als gro als er am crez
sey gehangen mit blut vnd mit fleysch. Er hat nye keins fleyschs gedacht. er het nur
vom leib geredt (Ziegler, nyessung, b4r). He remarks that just because a Spirit (namely,
God) has no flesh and bones, does not mean that a Spirit has no body (Ibid., b2r). In
his next Eucharistic publication, Ziegler would identify Christs spiritual body as the
eternal Word, which Christ had from all eternity (Ziegler, bchli, d3r-v). By body,
therefore, Ziegler means something like a discrete personal self, whereas by flesh he
means a corporeal substance. The former is given as a pledge in the Eucharist, the
latter sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven (Ibid., d3v-d4r).
160
Ziegler, nyessung, a4r, b2v; Ziegler, bchli, c2r.
161
Ziegler, nyessung, c1v; Ziegler, bchli, b1v.
michael keller 143
Completely absent from Zieglers analysis of the situation is any

sense that these practices were historically or presently demanded by
the laity, or appropriated by them as useful for their own objectives. He
will not concede that these practices were ever conceived of or
employed as anything other than a device by the clergy to increase
their own status and wealth, and this to the spiritual destruction of the
laity who are led thereby into idolatry and blasphemy. Regarding the
worship of the consecrated host, Ziegler writes:
Then dont you think that we greatly enrage God when we worship a
creature and a created thing, as though it were a god. This worship was
established by the false prophets, whose belly is their god. For they have
not undertaken or established such institutions and worship for the sal-
vation of human souls. Rather, they have instituted it for themselves as
an open market and for a profit, so that the women, after they have
prayed to the Sacrament on one side of the altar, go all the way around to
the other side and lay on the altar coins, cheese, eggs, flax, hens, and
meat. Thus the temple or house of prayer becomes a merchandise house,
or a murderers den.162
162
Dann meinend ir nit das wir got grlich erzrnnen das wir anbeten ein creatur
vnd ein geschpfft / gleich als einen gott / welches aubetten [sic] von den falschen
propheten ist auffgericht deren ir bauch ir got ist. Dann sollichs auffrichten vnd
anbetten hand sye nit gethon oder auffgericht zu der seligkeit der menschen selen.
Sonder inen zu einem grempel marckt / vnd zu einem gewinn / vff das die weiber so
sye also dz Sacrament angebetten / das sye jhensyt dem altar seind / vnd dann gar
vmbhr gent / legen den pfenning / heller / k / eyer / flachs / hner vnd fleisch vff
den altar / vff das der tempel oder das bethau auch werd ein kauffhau vnd ein
mrder grub / (Ziegler, bchli, b1v). What exact ceremony is being performed here is
not entirely clear. It could be some sort of first fruits offering or a ritual related to the
tithe. The most likely solution, however, is that Ziegler is describing the blessing of the
Easter foods.In this ceremony, which takes place on Easter, foods that were prohibited
during Lent were brought to the altar for blessing. Among these would be various
kinds of meat, cheese, and eggs, as well as other festive foods, such as baked goods.
According to the 1480 Formulary for the Bishopric of Mainz, the blessing of the foods
could take place after the canon: Istae benedictiones, si fiant infra canonem, dicentur
post elevationem in illo loco: Intraquorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti, sed
veniae quaesumus largitor admitte. Per dominum nostrum Amen (Hermann
Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien und Ritualen im Bistum Mainz seit dem
Sptmittelalter, vol. 1. Bis 1671 (Mainz-rmischer Ritus) [Mnster: Aschendorffsche
Buchdruckerei, 1971], 592609). This would, of course, provide the opportunity for
the worship of the host, as described by Ziegler. It appears in Strasbourg that it was the
women who took part in this Easter ritual. This is logical, since they would have been
in charge of the familys food stocks and food preparation. Therefore, they would have
been the ones involved in a ritual designating a change in the practice of meal selection
and food preparation. Further, it appears that they left some small coins on the altar as
a fee to the priest for performing the ceremony, not an unusual practice. Finally, if
Zieglers insinuation is correct, the priest kept the offered food for himself. The only
unaccounted for element in Zieglers account is the flax. But apart from that, the cer-
emony that Ziegler criticizes corresponds closely to the blessing of the Easter foods.
144 chapter three
A similarly unfavorable reevaluation of the history and value of

these traditions stands behind these Augsburg attacks on the host. One
can also take this analysis one step further to help explain why it was
particularly those rituals originally demanded by the laity as part of an
attempt to carve out a portion of the Eucharistic power for their own
use, that later served as a target of their rage and rejection. For some,
these rituals became shameful symbols and reminders of how they had
been duped, of how the clergy had allowed the laity to bargain for a
special access to Christ, which they never controlled, in exchange for
the laitys affirmation of the clergys mediating power, which they never
possessed. Once they had discovered that the entire onerous system of
clerical mediation was a fraud, these concessions which they had
navely sought and won became especially infuriating. This interpreta-
tion provides us further insight into the decision of the weaver to attack
the woman with the candle at the Corpus Christi procession. The
weaver would have seen her as a nave pigeon still under the sway of
this great clerical hoax. His act was, among other things, a crude
attempt to break her free from the deception.
Finally, we must consider the question, against which religious party
were these attacks directed? Although the obvious answer is the
Catholic Church, the situation is more complicated than that. It will be
recalled that the exposed host was stolen from the church of St. Anna,
the center of Lutheran preaching in the city. Given this fact, it is not at
all clear that many lay persons did not view the emerging Lutheran
clergy in the second half of the 1520s as standing in a continuum with
the Catholic clergy, and as still infected with their mediating pretenses.
Karlstadt made this very argument in his treatise, Von dem Newen vnd
Alten Testament, published twice in Augsburg in 1525. He argues:
For the Lutherans want to go further with their error, and not only give
us the blood of Christ to drink in a bodily manner, but over and above
that, to set up poor, miserable, lustful, sinful, and unbelieving priests as
mediators of the New Testament and of the blood of the New Testament,
so that they sin enough against the blood of Christ.163
163
/ denn sy wollen mit irem / irrtumb frt faren / vnd vns das blut Christi nicht
allain leyblich zudrincken geben / sonder darber / arme / ellende / laufige / sndige
vnd vnglaubige pfaffen setzen / als mitler des newen testamentes / vnd des bluts des
newen testamentes / auf das sy sich ye an dem blut Christi genugsam versndigen
(Khler, Fiche 107, Nr. 276, b3v-b4r).
michael keller 145
Further, he maintains:
But, however, the new Papist [i.e. Luther] sets up a mediator of the New
Testament and of the Testator when he says that the priests give of the
Lords blood in their chalice to the laity. But isnt this a great disgrace and
contempt for the blood of Christ? See now how Luther so little regards
the blood of Christ that he says a priest can give it for a drink. Isnt it a
miserable thing that that we have to hear how Luther compares such a
vile and lowly priest to the most high priest and puts the two side by
side?164
Karlstadt is arguing that accepting the mediation of Christs presence
through the bread and wine creates the conditions that allow and even
require further levels of mediation. Once it is agreed that Christs body
and blood are in the elements, the minister who distributes the sacra-
ment is necessarily placed in the position of mediating the body and
blood to the laity. This is an outrageous sacrilege because only Christ is
worthy to be priest and mediator, bringing his body and blood directly
into the hearts of believers through the Holy Spirit, not into their
mouths through the hands of a filthy, godless priest. Karlstadt directly
charges Luther and his supporters with continuing a system of clerical
mediation by maintaining a special presence of Christ in the elements
of the Eucharist. This and other books of Karlstadt circulating among
his supporters in Augsburg would have reinforced the laitys own per-
ception of the Lutheran preachers at St. Anna as perpetuators of doc-
trines and practices that promoted traditional reverence towards the
mediated Christ, contained in the host. As often occurred in the
polemical Eucharistic treatises of Zwingli, attacks ostensibly against
Catholics easily bled over to the Lutheran camp, as the two increas-
ingly began to be identified with each other. The deleterious effect such
a perception would have on the Lutheran attempt to win over laity who
had an anti-mediational mindset, need hardly be underscored.
We now return to the question of whether Keller himself was behind
these acts of protest and ritual desecration. There is evidence to think
that he probably had a hand in it. There is, of course, Senders charge
164
Aber dennocht setzt der new Bapst mittler des newen testamentes / vnd
Testatores / wenn er spricht / das die pfaffen des herren blut in irem Kelch den
layen geben / Ist aber das nicht ain grosse schmach / vnd verachtung des bluts Christi:
Seyte mal Luther das blut Christi so gering achtet / da ain pfaff geben kan zu ainem
tranck / Ist es nicht ain ellend ding / das wir hren mussen / das Luther dem allerhoch-
sten priester solche schnode vnd nyderige pfaffen vergleycht vnd an seyne seytten stel-
let: (Karlstadt, Testament,, B 4v.).
146 chapter three
that Keller was always preaching something new and tearing away
from the Catholic Church people who would then turn their backsides
to the Sacrament when it was carried through the streets.165 As we
noted above, Keller had already urged his congregation to reject those
Eucharist-empowered ceremonies, in which they had earlier placed so
much hope.
Further, Keller clearly understood the power of visual gestures. On
May 26, 1529, he ascended the pulpit, held up a mass vestment, and
declared that he was going to bury it in the ground as a sign that no
more masses should be celebrated in the city. At this point the vest-
ment was taken away and trodden underfoot.166 The impact of this act,
like that of throwing red meat to a hungry crowd, would not have been
lost on Keller. Furthermore, this gesture was open to multiple interpre-
tations. Kellers stated interpretation of this performance was that the
vestment stood for the mass and its burial signified its abolition.
However, he must have been aware that in the more obvious interpre-
tation of the act, the vestment stood for the persons who would wear it,
namely the Catholic clergy. The assault on and burial of this garment
carried with it not-so-subtle undertones of violence.
This instance appears to be an example of what seems to be a calcu-
lated reluctance of Keller to take responsibility for incendiary gestures.
On Sunday night, March 14, 1529, Michael Keller and three of his sup-
porters entered the Franciscan church at night and broke apart a large
crucifix with pictures attached to it.167 One of the men, Sigismund
Welser, also broke apart his own family altar.168 Despite the secretive
nature of the nighttime exploits, by the next day the identity of the
perpetrators had become known. On Tuesday morning, Keller declared
in his sermon that the reason they had taken down the crucifix was
that it had become dangerously unstable and could fall suddenly and
kill those below. As they had had attempted to remove it, the crucifix
broke apart of its own accord, due to its great weight.169 The attempt of
Keller to construe his act of iconoclasm as a safety precaution demon-
strates his awareness of the dangerous game he was playing.
165
166
Ibid., 218.
167
168
Preu, Chronik, 44.
169
Sender, Chronik, 215. Preu adopts Kellers explanation as his own (Preu,
Chronik, 4344).
michael keller 147
The destruction of property and the usurpation of the proper function

of the magistracy in the regulation of religious practice was a serious
issue, and Keller had intended to keep his role in the affair a secret.
When it became clear that such a course would not be possible, he
resorted to the same tactic that he had employed in the vestment affair.
He distanced himself from the clear, incendiary implication of the act
by offering a more benign interpretation. On March 18, the city coun-
cil declared Welser ringleader of the undertaking, despite his not far-
fetched protestations that Keller had planned the entire act. He was
fined 300 fl. and imprisoned for four weeks.170 Keller seems to have
been content to let Welser take the fall, for he never intervened in the
proceedings.
A combination of these four factorsSenders charge of Kellers
involvement in the acts of protest against the use of the host, Kellers
public statements condemning popular lay uses of the Eucharist, his
understanding of the power of visual acts, and his reluctance to own up
to the significance of such acts or the part he played in themsuggests
that it would be characteristic of Keller to be involved in such events
and that there is no reason to doubt the statements of Sender. Keller
would have been aware that acts of ritual desecration, or desacraliza-
tion, would have played a crucial role in disempowering both the
Catholics and the Lutherans at whom these actions were aimed.
Indeed, displaying disrespect towards the sacred host would have
shown it up as a risible fraud and broken down established taboos
against similar thoughts and deeds. But beyond that, the act of profan-
ing and mocking a sacred object would have had the effect of robbing
that sacred object of its power, and simultaneously endowing the revil-
ers with authority and elevated status, having challenged spiritual
power and emerged unscathed. Keller would have been aware that pre-
senting a positive program is never enough to ensure the ascendance
of a movement. One must also go on the offensive against ones oppo-
nents. For reasons already mentioned, Keller was reluctant to take this
approach in his public sermons. The employment of proxies offered an
ingenious solution to the quandary. From the evidence already pre-
sented on the Zwinglian shift that took place in Augsburg in the sec-
ond half of the 1520s, Kellers scheme appears to have been a success.
170
CHAPTER FOUR
SACRAMENTARIAN SECTS IN AUGSBURG AND THEIR

TRANSITION TO ANABAPTISM
The emerging sectarian movement in Augsburg adhered to a symbolic

interpretation of the Eucharist, which allowed it to articulate a bundle
of its foundational positions and concerns. By 1527, however, the situ-
ation was changing. Former sacramentarian sectarians who had been
content to let their interpretation of the Lords Supper function as their
central, organizing position, began to consider believers baptism to be
the new, most effective way to articulate their religious and social
vision vis--vis the religious, political, and economic establishment.
The rise and fall of the central role of sacramentarianism among
Augsburgs religious sectarians demonstrates both the potential and
limitations of the strategy to employ a particular position on an issue
to carry the entire symbolic weight of a groups agenda.
The previous chapter described the emergence of lay groups within
the developing Evangelical Church who were opposed to the preserva-
tion of concepts of clerical mediation. The interpretation of the Lords
Supper was the battlefield on which was waged the conflict over the
relative status and roles of minister and congregation. Some of the his-
torical forces and doctrinal considerations that propelled this issue to
the center of the debate were brought up in the discussion of Michael
Kellers rise to influence and popularity. We begin this chapter by
developing a more complete picture of the origins and development of
these sectarian groups, and the reasons for their adherence to a sym-
bolic understanding of the Eucharist.
The sectarians defined themselves largely over against the Evangelical
movement, criticizing the Evangelicals for failing to improve morals
and for re-clericalizing religion. Adopting a symbolic interpretation of
the Eucharist situated them favorably to argue convincingly for their
two critical concerns. By rejecting the position that Christ was present
in an extraordinary way in the elements of the Eucharist, the sectarians
eliminated any possibility that the clergy could play a mediating role
between the laity and God by producing and controlling the distribu-
tion of Gods presence localized in the elements. Further, they were
able to protest against the failure of the Evangelical leaders to effect
150 chapter four
increased moral seriousness both at the level of the individual and in

the context of broad social relations. They presented an alternative to
the failed Evangelical Church and society, the closed, sectarian com-
munity. This church/societys earnest practice of mutual, egalitarian
brotherly love was to function as a tacit condemnation of Evangelical
church and society, still ruled by oppressive hierarchy, personal immo-
rality, and social injustice. This new community was ritually instanti-
ated in its essential form through its symbolic remembrance of Christs
Last Supper, during which time the members reaffirmed the central
qualities of their organization: unity, love, and equality. Finally, the
doctrine that Christ was present in the Eucharist became associated,
for historical reasons, with certain establishment Evangelical preachers
in Augsburg (and especially with Urbanus Rhegius) who were seen as
part of a nexus of religious, economic, and political elites conspiring to
exploit the common man. That a belief in the Real Presence became
the signature doctrine of preachers like Rhegius may well have doomed
its ultimate reception among the common people, even independent
of its actual content.
Dissatisfaction with the progress of the Reformation developed
quickly in German cities, especially among the artisanal classes. By
1524 there had emerged a significant chorus of discontent about the
failure of the Reformation to change its adherents personal habits or
broader social and economic relationships. This theme would be artic-
ulated in the second half of the 1520s to great effect by Anabaptist
groups. It is Augsburg, however, that produced the first published
expression of this rising wave of dissatisfaction. In 1522 the Augsburg
military official Haug Marschalck (Zoller)1 produced Ein Spiegel der
1
Marschalck was a Reisiger by profession, that is, a mounted military official from
a minor noble, patrician, or at least prosperous civic family. He was in the employ of
the Augsburg city council and would have served a variety of functions, including
leading city troops into war, providing escorts for Augsburg officials, commanding city
troops, ensuring security, and serving as an official messenger in important situations.
Marschalck came from a Memmingen patrician family and was employed by Augsburg
as a Reisiger from at least 1508 through the year of his death, 1535. He accompanied
Augsburgs troops into battle on a number of occasions between 1519 and 1529,
including during the Peasants War. On Marschalck, see Friedrich Roth, Wer war
Haug Marschalck, genannt Zoller von Augsburg? (hereafter Roth, Marschalck),
Beitrge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 6 (1900): 229234; Chrisman, Reform,
114115, 123124, 131132.
sacramentarian sects in augsburg 151
Blinden, his first of a series of six pamphlets written between 1522

and 1526.2
Marschalck wasted no time in criticizing his fellow Evangelicals
failure to improve their lives, since the Reformation had barely gotten
underway in Augsburg. In Ein Spiegel der Blinden, Marschalck, while
naturally highly critical of the priests and monks of the old religion,
defends and praises Evangelical preachers and the books of the
Wittenberg reformers. The problems with the Evangelical movement,
he says, lie not with the Reformers or with their message but with the
unwillingness of their supporters to apply the message to their lives.
Marschalck takes aim at a broad cross-section of society: merchants,
artisans, nobles, all have failed to follow the Evangelical teaching.
Merchants spend their days amassing great possessions, burdening
and ruining their Christian brothers in the process. They let their chil-
dren dress in scandalous sumptuousness.3 Artisans are guilty of
defrauding their customers. The ones that produce wares from natural
resourcesleather, cloth, metals, and woodare bad enough. The
worst, however, are those that deal in foodstuffs, like wine, bread, and
meat. They sell goods that are of poor quality, or even spoiled and rot-
ten, damaging the health of their clients.4 Nobles initiate great wars
and bring ruin to many poor people and cause the roads to be unsafe.
Many people in each of these social groups call themselves good
Evangelicals, an assertion that Marschalck regards with incredulity. He
charges, Then we read and listen to these books [from Wittenberg]
gladly, and also enjoy a good Evangelical preacher, but we do not want
to act in accordance with the message. Indeed, we all say, We are right
Evangelical. 5 Marschalck concludes that very few people actually
hunger after the Word of God and the salvation of their souls. Most
who buy the Evangelical books or hear the sermons seem earnest
2
Hereafter Marschalck, Spiegel. I will be citing from the edition in, Adolf Laube,
ed., Flugschriften der frhen Reformationsbewegung (15181524) (hereafter Laube,
Flugschriften (15181524)), vol. 1 (Vaduz, Lichtenstein: Topos Verlag, 1983), 128155.
Also, Khler, Fiche 167, Nr. 455. The treatise was published three times in Augsburg in
1522. In 1523 it appeared in Strasbourg and Basel.
3
Marschalck, Spiegel, 133.
4
5
Dann wir lesendts unnd hrendt sy geren unnd sollych gutt prediger auch, wir
wellendt aber nit darnach handlen. Ja, wir sprechen all, wir seind gut evangelisch
(Marschalck, Spiegel, 136, 1517).
152 chapter four
enough, but when the time comes for them to return to their work,
they continue in their old, dishonorable ways.
Who then loves these writings, or reads or listens to them gladly? Only
those who really hunger after the Word of God and the salvation of their
soul, etc. Oh how few there are! In contrast, many of you buy and read
these books and inquire earnestly about their meaning, and find your-
selves very pleased by them, and praise them highly, and you, boasting of
them loudly and often, are always running after the Evangelical preach-
ers, who preach the Gospel pure and clear. You listen gladly to them and
extol and praise them highly, as is fitting. When you come into the
crowds, you speak everywhere favorably and complimentarily of the
preachers, etc. But what effect does it all have on these people? Each one
leaves such a sermon and debates it again at home, and what each has
long engaged in for a trade or for gain, whether by work or otherwise, he
continues to do henceforth, just as before [that is, in contravention of
brotherly love].6
If the so-called Evangelicals took the message of the books and ser-
mons to heart, they would love God with their whole heart, soul, and
mind, and their neighbor as themselves. Out of this would emerge fair
and just social and economic relations. Marschalck emphasizes the
point:
[Jesus] says, Your neighbor, your neighbor. Take careful note of this.
Dont forget your neighbor! If we were to follow these instructions, then
all the good books and all the good Evangelical sermons would be useful
and good for us. Then no one would be deceived or hated by another,
neither in exchange, nor buying nor selling. People would help each
other, the rich helping the poor and the poor the rich. Out of this would
develop a true brotherly love.7
6
Welliche habent aber dise byechle lieb oder leent oder hrendt sy geren? Die
alain, die da recht hungrig seynd nach dem wort Gottes unnd der seel hail etc. O, der
seynnd wenig. Nun kauffent unnd lesent sunst auch ir vil dise byechle unnd fragendt
feindtlich darnach, unnd lassen in gantz wolgefallen, und lobent sy hoch unnd bery-
emendt sich ir starck und seer, laffent auch solchen prediger fast nach, die daz evange-
lium rain, lauter predigen, und hrent sy gern und breysent und lobent sy hoch, als
denn byllich, und redent beral, wa sy zu hauf komment, wol und schon darvon etc.
Waz wrckt es aber in demselbigen? Es gat ain yeder von solcher predig und dysputatz
wider haym zu hau, und waz yeder fr ain handel oder gewynnung mit arbait oder
sunst vor lang her getriben hat, daz treibt er frohin wie vor (Marschalck, Spiegel, 135,
1830).
7
Er spricht: den nechsten, den nechsten. Merck da eben auff, vergyssz des nech-
sten nit! Wann wir daz thund, so seind uns dise gute buchle und all gute evangelisch
predigen nutz und gut. Hiemit wurd kainer von dem andern betrogen oder gehat,
weder mit wechlen, kauffen, und verkauffen, unnd hulff ainer dem andern, der
Indeed, for Marschalck, the proper exercise of religion lies not primar-
ily in performing certain ceremonies, or in reading the right books or
listening to the right sermons. Nor does he seem particularly inter-
ested in personal morality: refraining from visiting prostitutes, exces-
sive drinking, swearing, gambling, brawling, and so forth. Marschalck
defines right religion primarily as conducting fair business practices
and compassionately exercising social justice. This attitude is in evi-
dence in Marschalcks commentary on Pauls admonition to pray with-
out ceasing. Marschalck declares that this injunction does not mean
that one should light many candles or say many prayers on the rosary,
although he is not opposed to lighting a few candles to honor the
Sacrament. Rather, when the rich man considers the poor and has
compassion on them in their misery, when the merchant measures out
a good, proper amount of his ware, when the craftsman does not dupe
his clientthat is to pray without ceasing.8
It would be improper to call Marschalck a sectarian. There is no
record that he ever advocated a break with the institutional church or
demanded radically egalitarian relations within the congregation.
However, in 1526 he did publish a no longer extant pamphlet, which
apparently discussed the Holy Sacrament in an irreverent, sacrilegious
fashion. For this deed he was sentenced by the city council to four
weeks in the tower.9 Unfortunately, nothing more is known about this
pamphlet, his precise views on the Eucharist, or what brought about
his transformation from an ardent supporter of the Wittenberg
Reformers to an apparent advocate of a symbolic interpretation of the
Lords Supper. Dissatisfaction with the degenerate social order, impa-
tience with the lack of moral improvement among self-proclaimed
Evangelicals, and denial of Christs presence in the Eucharist were,
indeed, the hallmarks of the sectarian movement in Augsburg, and
Marschalck manifested all three. However, Michael Keller was able to
provide a viable institutional church alternative for individuals with
such inclinations, and there is no reason to doubt that Marschalck
found a home in this setting.
His personal trajectory aside, Marschalcks popular pamphlet (pub-
lished three times in Augsburg in 1522) is a testament to a rising tide
reich dem armen, der arme dem reichen, und erwuchs ain rechte bruderlyche lieb
(Marschalck, Spiegel, 136, 2935).
8
9
Roth, Marschalck, 230.
154 chapter four
of dissatisfaction within the city regarding the failure of the Reformation

to bring improvement in perceived social inequalities, economic injus-
tice, and general dishonesty in an increasingly impersonal business
realm. This discontent came to a head in August 1524 during the
Schilling affair, and it endured long after the revolutionary activity that
it generated had been suppressed.
Such discontent with the Reformation was not unique to Augsburg.
In 1523 and 1524 pamphlets in a similar vein were published in
Augsburg, whose authors hailed from its sister city to the north,
Nuremberg. In 1523 the Augsburg printer Silvan Otmar published the
treatise Die Welt sagt, sie sehe kein Besserung von den, die sie lutherisch
nennet, by Hans Greiffenberger, a Nuremberg painter inclined to spir-
itualism.10 In 1524 two pamphlets critical of the Reformations progress
written by shoemaker and master singer Hans Sachs were published in
Augsburg two times each: Ein Dialogus und Argument der Romanisten
wider das christlich Huflein and Ein Gesprch eines evangelischen
Christen mit einem Lutherischen. Both Greiffenberger and Sachs were
ardent supporters of the Reformation who nevertheless expressed
great disappointment at the limited degree to which the preaching of
the Gospel transformed social relations.
Such pamphlets would have added fuel to the fire of discontent
within the city. For while Augsburg was not the only city in Germany
prone to unrest over economic and social disruptions of the early
modern era, its atmosphere was even more highly charged than many.
The tremendous economic growth in Augsburg between the early
1470s and the mid 1520s was not distributed evenly, although one can-
not simply apply to the situation a rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer
model. The reality is slightly more complex. In 1475 the upper class
formed 3.5% of the population and paid 70% of the taxes on property
and wealth (excluding excise and head taxes); the middle class
formed 13.2% of the population and paid 25.5% of the taxes; and
theunderclass formed 83.3% of the population and paid 4.5% of the
taxes. In contrast, in 1516 the upper class formed 6.5% of the popula-
tion and paid 89.9% of the taxes; the middle class formed 15.6% of the
10
On Greiffenberger, see Berndt Hamm, Geistbegabte gegen Geistlose: Typen des
pneumatologischen AntiklerikalismusZur Vielfalt der Luther-Rezeption in der
frhen Reformationsbewegung (vor 1525), in Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and
Early Modern Europe, ed., Peter Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman, Studies in Medieval
and Reformation Thought, 51 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 416429, 437440.
population and paid 8.8% of the taxes; and the lower class formed
77.9% of the population and paid 1.3% of the taxes.11
Over this period, it is worthwhile to observe that the underclass
shrunk by a little over 5% and the middle class grew slightly. However,
the upper class almost doubled in size. All of this indicates that the
newfound wealth provided at least moderate economic benefit to all
levels of society. However, the relative wealth, especially of the mid-
dlebut also the lowerclasses vis--vis the upper-class shrunk dra-
matically during these years. The fact that 6.5% of the population was
paying almost 90% of the taxes in 1516 points to a concentration of
vast wealth at the pinnacle of the social hierarchy. The development of
such an extraordinary disparity of wealth, even in an economy where
peoples positions were, on average, improving is, nevertheless, likely
to lead to an environment characterized by resentment and ill will.
This is especially the case in the tightly packed environment of the
early modern city, where rich and poor rubbed shoulders on a daily
basis. This attitude has already shown up in our examination of
Marschalck, who criticized the merchant sons clothing for its ostenta-
tious display of wealth.
Furthermore, the average artisan in 1525 Augsburg naturally would
not have had access to these statistics to reassure him that Augsburgs
influx of wealth had provided his social class with the opportunity for
upward economic mobility over the preceding two generations. In fact,
many would have described in very negative terms the impact on their
lives of the mechanism behind Augsburgs economic expansion, that
is, a proto-capitalist system of impersonal, market-driven exchange
involving a series of economic actors connected by far-flung networks
of international trade.
An example of a group of people who felt squeezed by the imper-
sonal forces behind Augsburgs economic miracle was the weavers.
Well through the middle of the fifteenth century, members of the weav-
ers guild acquired raw materials, whether flax or wool, for their yarn
locally and then wove their cloth in response to specific orders from
known local clients. Around 1485 weavers began having difficulty
importing sufficient yarn to meet production demands. As a result,
certain wealthy weavers within the guild increasingly acted as import
merchants to their fellow weavers, acquiring yarn from outside the
11
Rogge, Nutzen, 102.
156 chapter four
area at market value and selling the yarn to the weavers at a profit.
Around the same time, the market for cloth changed. Now, the weav-
ers principal clients were no longer locals but large cloth dealers, who
quoted to the Augsburg weavers a purchase price that fluctuated
according to the demands of the international market.
The weavers ended up feeling squeezed by what they saw as unscru-
pulous merchants who were part of a large, murky world they neither
understood nor controlled. On the one hand, they were dependent on
the yarn merchants, who controlled the price of the yarn and the
amount that would be available to the Augsburg market. High prices
or large availability could wipe out their profit margins, the former for
obvious reasons, the latter because it would increase production of
cloth and thus drive down prices when the cloth merchants arrived to
purchase the weavers wares. On the other hand, they were dependent
on the cloth merchants. They could, of course, refuse the offered price
and sit on their product, but then they might very well lack the capital
to purchase yarn for the next season, not to mention money to feed
their families. Between 1494 and 1501 a dispute raged within the guild
between the guild merchants and the guild producers over whether to
import yarn. It was patched up temporarily by the city council in 1501,
but the issue continued to flare up over the next decade.12
This situation generated a sense that the new economic system was
characterized by exploitation and injustice, that under it, ones eco-
nomic security had grown more precarious, that some people were
certainly growing very rich at the expense of others. This type of pain-
ful encounter with the new economic realities in Augsburg, while per-
haps most powerfully illustrated by the experience of the weavers, was
certainly not limited to their ranks. The arrival of the Reformation
raised the hopes of many in Augsburg for an improvement in public
life, that is to say, the restoration of an idealized status quo ante. They
were looking for social justice, namely, a reapproximation of the rich to
the rest of society and a return to fair and honest, that is, personal
and local, business relations.
While it would be wrong to reduce the sectarians call for moral
improvement to an expression of dissatisfaction with prevailing eco-
nomic realities, these economic conditions certainly played a signifi-
cant role in developing the content of that dissatisfaction and increasing
12
For a discussion of entire issue, see Rogge, Nutzen, 107113.
the appeal of that message to the population of Augsburg. We will note

below the importance for some sectarians of pious living in a private
moral sense, so we do not want to argue that economic issues were
determinative. Nor, however, do we want to overlook the role that eco-
nomic hardship and insecurity played in shaping Augsburg residents
understanding of moral issues and imperatives or in increasing their
receptivity to certain positions based on moral arguments.
Linking the Argument for Moral Improvement with a Symbolic

View of the Eucharist
Among those who stayed in the institutional church, the clearest

instances of a concern for moral and social improvement conjoined
with a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist have been found in the
writings of Haug Marschalck and in the tumultuous congregation at
the Franciscan church, first under Hans Schilling and later, in a more
muted way, under Michael Keller. Further, the three preachers in
Augsburg who during the 1520s advocated a symbolic interpretation
of the Eucharist, served in the Vorstadt (the area formerly outside the
walls), that is, in the three poorest parishes in town. In this region of
town the economic grievances would have been the strongest. Michael
Kellers Franciscan church was not, strictly speaking, a parish church,
but it functioned as such, serving the poorest segments of Augsburg
society. Hans Schmeid served at Heiliges Kreuz (Holy Cross church)
and Johann Seifried was pastor of St. Georg.13 It appears that these men
occasionally worked together as a team to harass clergy who held reli-
gious views offensive to them.14 Kellers program (and perhaps also
that of Schneid and Seifried, the sources are simply silent on the mat-
ter) offered to his anti-mediational congregation with its economic
grievances an interpretation of the Eucharist that dissolved the funda-
mental distinction between clergy and laity and offered them member-
ship in a ritually constituted society instantiated in and given certain
boundaries by a celebration of the Eucharist in which participants
committed to serve each other in love.
13
Goner, Kirchenhoheit, 30.
14
Clemens Sender describes a less than successful attempt of these three preachers
to confront a priest at the cathedral preaching on the veneration of the saints (Sender,
Chronik, 193194).
158 chapter four
A supporter of Kellers program, however, would have to be willing

to sacrifice ideological purity on some levels. Keller had all the trap-
pings of a traditional cleric, was paid by the city council, and served at
its, not the congregations, pleasure. A degree of distance and even
elevation of the minister over against the congregation was structured
into the relationship. Some with radical communal, egalitarian, or
anti-mediational convictions would have found this unacceptable.
While Keller did propose a Christian congregation based on mutual
bonds of love, he seems to have been reluctant to throw much red meat
to the hardcore agents of moral change, whether in the personal or
public sphere. Regarding the former, Keller, a secular priest preaching
at a Franciscan church, did not view himself in the line of traditional
Franciscan preachers of repentance. He does not seem to have attacked
immorality with special vigor, either in his congregation or among the
citys political and economic elite. Kellers church was essentially a par-
ish church, open to all. Creating a congregation composed of a holy
elite was not feasible.
Regarding the public sphere, in the wake of the Schilling affair,
structural critiques of the social or economic order were strictly off
limits. Keller freely assailed the spiritual hierarchy of the old religion
but did not attack the citys political or economic hierarchies, nor did
he broach the issue of how the three intertwined in mutually reinforc-
ing ways.15 Doing so would have created just the sort of explosive situ-
ation that he was paid by the city council to prevent from emerging.
15
In their article Gesellschaftliche Fhrungsgruppen in Gottlieb, Geschichte, Olaf
Mrke and Katarina Sieh argue that the categories of political power, economic power,
and social status did not all inhere in a single group of Augsburg elite. A family like the
Fuggers, while part of the economic elite, before 1538 lacked the status of the patrician
rank (after which point they along with thirty-seven other wealthy families were
admitted to the patriciate), and before 1548 exercised little political power in the city
(after which point Charles V re-imposed a patrician constitution in Augsburg). Only
three of the seven Augsburg patrician families surviving into the sixteenth century
the Herwart, the Rehlinger, and the Welserwere, in addition to being of high social
status, both quite wealthy and politically powerful. The Langenmantel family was
politically powerful, and the Hofmaier, Ilsung, and Ravensburger were neither (302
303). While the authors point that the Augsburg elite was composed of different hier-
archies is well taken, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that these hierarchies
overlapped at many points and in many individuals and families. My study, which is
concerned with the perceptions and resentments of the non-elite, considers issues of
status with reference to the clerical estate rather than to the patriciate. The relatively
small group of seven patrician families seems to have inspired, per se, relatively little
animus among the population.
Clearly some individuals would not have been satisfied with the degree
to which Keller was beholden to powerful forces within the city.
Those individuals within Augsburg who were not satisfied with
Kellers alternative were the true sectarians who remained either out-
side or on the fringes of the institutional church, preferring their own
religious gatherings. It remains now to consider the anti-mediational
and moral reformist concerns of the Augsburg sects in the period
before the rise of Anabaptism in the city, and the ways in which these
concerns were articulated through the interpretation and celebration
of Christs symbolic presence in the Lords Supper.
A main point of access to these shadowy but vibrant groups is pro-
vided by considering the life of Ludwig Htzer (c. 15001529). Htzer
was an early supporter of the Reformation in Zurich and spent his
short life oscillating between the radical and magisterial wings of the
Reformation. Htzer was born in Bischofszell around the year 1500
and matriculated in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Basel in
1517. There, he learned Greek and Hebrew, although it is unclear
whether he obtained an academic degree.16 He received ordination and
obtained his first position in Wdenswil on Lake Zurich.
By the fall of 1523 Htzer had begun to publicly agitate for the
Reformation. In September 1523 he published in Zurich his first pam-
phlet, Ein Urteil Gottes unseres Ehegemahls, wie man sich mit allen
Gtzen und Bildnissen halten soll.17 In it, he argues that God forbids the
making of images and commands that the existing ones be broken. He
buttresses his case with citations from the New and Old Testaments
and concludes with the admonition that the church must be cleansed
of images or face impending divine wrath.18
Beginning in September, priests and laity began on their own initia-
tive to remove images from churches in and around Zurich. People
were arrested by the city council, and the clergy protested the arrests,
declaring that images violated the Word of God. The council agreed to
hold what became known as the Second Zurich Disputation, which
16
J. F. Gerhard Goeters, Ludwig Htzer (ca. 1500 bis 1529) Spiritualist und
Antitrinitarier: Eine Randfigur der frhen Tuferbewegung (hereafter Goeters, Htzer),
Quellen und Forschung zur Reformationgeschichte (Gtersloh: Bertelmann Verlag,
1957), 1013. By Randfigur, Goeters does not mean that Htzer was only of marginal
importance to the Anabaptist movement, but that he remained on the margins of the
movement, never fully committing himself to it until the end.
17
For an edition of this pamphlet, see Laube, Flugschriften (15181524), 271283.
18
Goeters, Htzer, 1719.
160 chapter four
dealt with images and the mass and took place between October 26
and 28, 1523. Htzer acted as transcriber for the disputation. His report
appeared in print in December of that year.
The disputation revealed a split between a group of reformers cen-
tered around Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz, Simon Stumpff, and others
who sought a swift implementation of the Reformation, and their
opponents, who were willing to accede to the small councils desire to
go more slowly. Htzer sided with the radicals. In October 1523, he
interrupted the sermon of a Catholic preacher and caused an uproar
that was finally resolved in his favor by the large council of Zurich.19
By the end of 1523, Htzer had left his position in Wdenswil and
was looking for employment. During this period, he received his first
translating opportunity, a job that would become his lifes occupation.
The Augsburg printer Silvan Otmar gave him the task of translating
into German a recently republished Latin treatise that had been writ-
ten in 1085 by the convert to Christianity Samuel Marochitanus, Rabbi
of Toledo. Htzers translation, Ein Beweisung, da der wahr Messias
kommen sei, was published on January 2, 1524. The original treatise, a
defense of Christianity against Judaism, contained a section supportive
of the mass. In the Otmar edition, Htzer allows the text to stand, miti-
gated only by a few critical marginals. However, on March 12, 1524,
Htzer republished a revised translation of the treatise with the Zurich
printer Johannes Hager, this time with the Catholic statements about
the mass removed and a description of the Evangelical Lords Supper in
its place.20 Apparently he had not yet rejected the doctrine of the Real
Presence, for he refers to the body and blood of Christ as a sign of the
remission of our misdeeds.21 However, no other future opponents of
the Real Presence had publicly taken this step either; we are still seven
months away from Karlstadts treatises rejecting the Real Presence,
nine months away from Zwinglis composition of his letter to Matthis
Alber, and a year away from his publication of De vera et falsa religione
commentarius.
Otmar soon gave him another task, and in June 1524 Htzers trans-
lation of Johannes Bugenhagens commentary on Pauls epistles from
Ephesians to Hebrews appeared in Augsburg under the title Ain kurtze
19
20
21
Khler, Fiche 1765, Nr, 4458.
wolgegrndte Aulegung ber die Zehn nachgeenden Episteln S. Pauli.22

Htzer dedicated the book to the wealthy Evangelical Augsburg mer-
chant Andreas Rem. He also gives in his forward numerous thinly dis-
guised indications of his growing dissatisfaction with the Zurich
reformation. He accuses certain people of not preaching the pure Word
of God, preaching themselves rather than Christ, and following their
own opinions. He holds out the prospect of divine punishment.23
Htzers marginals demonstrate that he had thoroughly appropriated
the broad soteriological message of the Reformers. He remarks that
Christ is the only mediator, that faith is a sign of election, that we are
saved by faith not works, and that he who has faith also has works fol-
lowing from it.24
Htzer traveled to Augsburg in June 1524 to oversee the printing of
the Bugenhagen commentary and to begin work on a new project that
Otmar had given him, the translation of Bugenhagens commentary on
the Psalms. He was probably hoping to land a permanent job with
Otmar and to leave behind the Zurich reformation, with which he had
become increasingly disillusioned. He and Zwingli still must have been
on good terms, however, since Zwingli wrote him a letter of introduc-
tion to Johannes Frosch, dated June 16, 1524.25 Frosch, who at that
time was the public face of the Evangelical movement in Augsburg,
passed the letter on to Rhegius. Rhegius probably introduced Htzer to
Rem, to whom Rhegius himself had dedicated a book.
Through these or other contacts, Htzer must have gained access to
the upper levels of society, for he swiftly formed a friendship with the
wealthy merchant Jrg Regel. He would spend time with Regel at his
fortress, Lichtenberg am Lech. The fortress served as the point from
which Regel, presumably with the assistance of Htzer, sought to evan-
gelize the local peasants. Regel would have Evangelical books read
aloud, ignore church-appointed fasts, and celebrate the sacrament
under both kinds. Largely owing to this sort of provocative behavior,
the Duke of Bavaria attacked the castle with his troops on September
28, 1524. He carted Regel and his wife away to Munich, where they
were forced to pay a fine of 3,000 guilders and swear to abide by the old
faith. Htzer escaped a similar fate, but only because he was at another
22
Khler, Fiche 18357, Nr. 4695.
23
24
Goeters, Htzer, 40.
25
ZW 8, Nr. 340, 200, ll. 2426.
162 chapter four
of his patrons properties at the time. Otmar had not offered a perma-
nent job to Htzer, and he had canceled the project to translate
Bugenhagens Psalms commentary.26 So with the arrest of Regel,
Htzers prospects in Augsburg began to look bleak. He returned to
Zurich, probably in October.
Matters had now come to the breaking point in Zurich. Preaching
against infant baptism had been going on since spring 1524. Shortly
after he returned to Zurich, Htzer took part with a number of others
in two private disputations with the Zurich preachers on the subject of
infant baptism. Htzer himself had long held doubts about infant bap-
tism, noting in a marginal in Bugenhagens commentary on Pauls let-
ters that there exists no explicit commandment in the New Testament
to baptize children.27 Since the private discussions did not resolve the
issues, the city council announced a public disputation for January 17,
1525. After the disputation was over, the city council immediately
began cracking down on the radical movement. It ordered that all
infants be baptized, that meetings of the radicals cease, that certain
radicals cease teaching, and that others, including Htzer, leave the
Zurich region.28
After a short stay in Constance, Htzer made his way back to
Augsburg, where he arrived by early summer 1525. He remained until
the middle of September, at which point he left rather than face a dis-
putation with Rhegius. He may well have feared that it was a trap laid
to bring about his arrest or expulsion. He apparently reestablished
close contact with Silvan Otmar, perhaps working in his print shop
and living in his house. His former patron, Regel, was now avoiding
him. Moreover, Htzers views on important matters had changed since
his last visit to Augsburg. Htzer was now tainted by the heresy of
Anabaptism. Until late 1527, however, there is no indication that
Htzer either baptized adults or publicly advocated believers baptism.
In fact, in his 1526 forward to his translation of Johannes
Oecolampadius work De genuina verborum Domini Hoc est corpus
meum expositione liber, Htzer defends himself against charges that he
was the leader of an Anabaptist sect during his 1525 stay in Augsburg.29
26
27
Goeters, Htzer, 49.
28
29
Michael Hummelberg, writing to Thomas Blaurer on November 5, 1525, refers
to Htzer as the rebaptizatorum sectae gloriosulus propugnator (Briefwechsel
der Brder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 15091548 [hereafter Blaurer, Briefwechsel],
ed.
He denies that he has ever taught Anabaptism either in writing or

orally. He did admit that he had held the opinion that it was wrong to
baptize children (antipaedobaptism). He had come to that conclusion
because of the papal teaching that salvation was attributed to the bap-
tismal water, something which pertains only to faith and an irreproach-
able trust in Christ. Because of this and other destructive superstitions
surrounding baptism, he had become suspicious of baptism. In con-
trast, he claims that he never praised Anabaptism and that, indeed, it
had always displeased him from his heart.30
Antipaedobaptism may seem to be an unstable position to hold,
since its adherents rejected the practice of infant baptism but did not
advocate adult baptism, making it uncertain who, exactly, was to be
baptized. It was, however, not an unheard of view in the mid-1520s.
Andreas Karlstadt, for example, was an antipaedobaptist during these
years. Htzers defense seems to be a plausible one, especially in light of
the fact that there is no evidence of adult baptisms taking place in
Augsburg during 1525.
Nevertheless, whatever view he may have held on the subject of bap-
tism, his passion lay elsewhere. It was the struggle to establish a sym-
bolic understanding of the Lords Supper that now consumed his
attention. He was a dogged champion of the Zwinglian view of the
Eucharist, proclaiming tenaciously the position that Christ was to be
found at the right hand of God in heaven, not in the bread and wine on
the altar. On September 14, 1525, Htzer wrote to Zwingli from
Augsburg and in an effort to reconcile with him, apologized for the
errors and excesses he had displayed in Zurich; he promised to be
more prudent in the future.31 The bulk of his letter, however, was taken
Traugott Schie, vol. 1 1509-June 1538 [Freiburg: Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1908], nr. 97, 123).
Oecolampadius writes to Zwingli on November 4, 1525, that Htzer was forced to
leave Augsburg by the power and authority of those who diligently teach Christ cruci-
fied and imbreaded and who were not strong enough to resist his spirit (tametsi inde
cedere coactum potentia et authoritate impanatum quam crucifixum Christum dili-
gentius praedicantium spirituique eius resistere non valentium). These same people
are now insisting, among other things, that Htzer ex catabaptistarum numero sit.
Oecolampadius insinuates that the charges may be trumped up, although he leaves
open the possibility that Htzer may have relapsed under pressure in Augsburg. He has
been keeping an eye on Htzers behavior (Htzer was now living with him) and has
found it, to this point, unobjectionable (ZW 8, Nr. 404, 417, l. 14418, l. 6).
30
Johann Oecolampadius, Von Sacrament der Dancksagung, trans. and with a for-
ward by Ludwig Htzer, a8r-v (Khler, Fiche 17461749, Nr. 4539).
31
ZW 8, Nr. 383, 363, ll. 1417.
164 chapter four
up with expressions of outrage against Urbanus Rhegius for suppos-

edly promoting under a pseudonym the doctrine of the Real Presence.
He repeatedly pleads with Zwingli to write against Rhegius and van-
quish this opponent of the truth: Therefore, I ask you, through the
immortal God, and many men of good faith ask you with me to refute
[Rhegius treatise] with another letter.32
Unfortunately, in his zeal and suspicion, Htzer had misidentified
Rhegius. The confusion can be traced back to an earlier discussion,
which Htzer relates to Zwingli, where Rhegius confided to Htzer that
he used the pseudonym Simon Hessus in some of his writings. Then, in
the fall of 1525, Johannes Bugenhagen published a polemical treatise
primarily against Zwinglis interpretation of the Eucharist, Contra
novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis domini nostri epis-
tola, at the request of the Breslau preacher Johannes He. This treatise,
which had been translated also in 1525 into German by the Augsburg
preacher Stephan Agricola as Ein Sendbrief wider den neuen Irrtum bei
dem Sacrament, was being passed about in Augsburg. Some were say-
ing that the Hector, Zwingli, had found his Achilles in Bugenhagen.33
When Htzer encountered the pamphlet, he assumed that the Lutheran
He, who had encouraged Bugenhagen to write against Zwingli, was
actually Rhegius operating under his pseudonym. He was outraged at
both the presumption and the cowardice of Rhegius. By the time he
writes his next letter to Zwingli, on October 17, 1525, he has realized
his mistake. He declares himself to be troubled that his negligence has
caused him to defame Rhegius name.34
Htzer may have mistaken Rhegius identity, but his understanding
of Rhegius view on the Eucharist in the fall of 1525 was largely accu-
rate. Sometime, probably shortly after Htzer wrote his September 14
letter to Zwingli, he and Rhegius confronted each other over the Lords
Supper. It appears that he did not wait for Zwingli to refute Rhegius,
but began to take matters into his own hands. As he saw it, Rhegius was
already at work in the city, endangering consciences and harming the
truth. Htzer saw that it was necessary to act to repair the damage and
declared to Zwingli that he was already engaged in this task. A case in
32
Rogo itaque te per deum immortalem, rogant mecum plurimi bonae fidei viri,
ut alio epistolio refellas illud (ZW 8, Nr. 383, 362, ll. 89).
33
Epistolium hoc passim Augustae ostentatur: Gellt, inquiunt, Hector Zuinglius
invenit Pomeranum Achillem (ZW 8, Nr. 383, 362, ll. 2324).
34
ZW 8, Nr. 393, 390, ll. 1213.
point was Stephan Agricola. At first Htzer had been able to have some
good conversations with him on the matter of the Eucharist. Now,
however, he has become entirely urbanicized (urbanisat), even going
so far as to translate the letter of He just to please Rhegius.35 Further
offense was given when Rhegius publicly refuted the Karlstadtians
use of the text of John 6:63, The flesh is of no avail, to argue for a
symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. Htzer apparently began
mocking and criticizing Rhegius among his sectarians (apud sectatores
suos). Rhegius became aware of this activity and challenged Htzer to
a public disputation, causing Htzer to leave the city.36
A reasonably clear picture of Htzers views on the Lords Supper
emerges from his extensive foreword to his translation of Oecolam-
padius De genuina verborum Domini Hoc est corpus meum exposi-
tione liber.37 Published at the beginning of 1526, only a few months
after he had left Augsburg, it reflects his position on the Eucharist dur-
ing his time in the city. He is concerned how the doctrine of the Real
Presence is damaging peoples consciences. He writes that all people
know
How many poor, tattered, wretched consciences the son of perdition,
and the Lion King (as he is called in Daniel), [that is,] the Antichrist, has
made with his tyrannical commandment and teaching that one must
believe that the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ are in the bread
and wine. Indeed, that the bread is the true body and the wine is the true
blood, the beginning of which is against our common faith, which from
our youth we have learned from our parents, and is also against the bibli-
cal writings and against his own canon law.38
35
ZW 8, Nr. 383, 362, l. 29363, l. 2.
36
Blaurer, Briefwechsel, Nr. 97, 124, ll. 17.
37
More abbreviated remarks to the same effect can be found in Htzers introduc-
tion to his partial translation of Oecolampadius Apologetica Ioannis Oecolampadii.
Translated was the section De dignitate Eucharistiae sermones duo. It was printed twice
in 1526, once in Basel and once in Augsburg by the printer Philipp Ulhardt. It ap-
peared under the title Vom Nachtmahl, Beweisung aus evangelischen Schriften, wer die
seien, so des Herren Nachtmahlswort unrecht verstanden (Khler, Fiche 1006, Nr. 2557).
Another edition of the translation appeared also in Augsburg in 1526, but without the
foreword and under the title Zween schn Sermon, inhaltend, da man von wegen des
Herren Nachtmahls brderliche Liebe nit soll zertrennen (Khler, Fiche 689, Nr. 1787).
38
Es wyssen alle menschen wie vil der sun aller verderpnu / vnnd der Laruen
Knig (wie in Daniel haisset) [Daniel 7:4] der Antchrist [sic] / armer /zerhudleter /
ellender gwssen / gmacht hab mit seinem tyrannischen gebott vnd leer / das man
glaube den waren nateurlichen leyb vnd blut Jesu Christi / im brot vnd wein sein. Ja /
das brot sey der war leyb / vnd der wein das war blut / welchs anfang wider vnser
gmainen glauben ist / den wir von jugent auf von vnsern Eltern glernet haben / auch
166 chapter four
Informing this passage is the view that Zwingli was presenting around
this time that the doctrine of Christs physical presence in the elements
of the Eucharist so thoroughly contradicted the principles of the faith
and good sense that it was impossible to believe it with ones whole
heart. This failure to believe in the doctrine of the church created trou-
bled consciences. Zwingli remarkably asserts in his Subsidium sive de
coronis Eucharistia of August 17, 1525, that [The doctrine] that the
symbolic bread is the living, carnal body of Christ, is so inconsistent
with the understanding of all the faithful, that none of us ever really
believed it.39 Htzer argues similarly that the people are being forced
to believe in a doctrine that contradicts the basic tenets of their faith
(by which he means the article of faith in the Apostles Creed that
Christ is currently seated at the right hand of God) and the testimony
of the Scripture. Such uncertainty about what to believe creates dan-
gerously troubled consciences.
Second, Htzer argues that it is impossible to abolish the worst
abuses of the papal system, the sacrifice of the mass, the arrogant pomp
of the clerical estate, and the trust in ones own works instead of the
suffering of Christ, if one adheres to a belief in the essential presence of
Christs body and blood in the Eucharist. He maintains, Simply put, if
the essential blood and flesh is hidden here, then the sacrifice (the
Mass) remains in force, regardless of whether someone wants to over-
throw it.40 Apart from the fact that the Mass is itself a horrible abomi-
nation, since it claims to be the re-sacrifice of Christ, it gives rise to two
more dangerous errors. All the arrogant pretensions of the clergy are
predicated upon the presence of Christ in the elements of the
Eucharist.41 Their false claims to power and authority could be abol-
ished if a pure symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist were rec-
ognized. Finally, the doctrine of the Real Presence directs people to
trust in their own works and external objects rather than in the suffer-
ing of Christ.42 People must cease believing that one can be saved or
wider Byblische schryfft / vnd wider sein aigen gschryben Recht (Oecolampadius:
Vom Sacrament, a3r).
39
Panem symbolicum vivum et carneum Christi corpus esse, sic abhorret a fide-
lium omnium sensu, ut nemo ex nobis unquam vere crediderit (ZW 4, 493, ll. 68).
40
Schlechts / ist blut vnd flaisch wesenlich hie verborgen / so bestedt das opffer
(die Mes) frey / trutz dz es yemmants vmmstossen mg (Oecolampadius, Vom
Sacrament, a3v).
41
Oecolampadius, Vom Sacrament, a3v.
42
Oecolampadius, Vom Sacrament, a4r, a10r.
have ones sins forgiven by consuming a piece of bread. Only true faith
can accomplish this.
It will be recalled that by the summer of 1525, there were principally
two places in Augsburg where one could go to find people adhering to
a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist: Michael Kellers Franciscan
church, and the various sectarian groups in the city. All evidence sug-
gests that Htzer headed straight for the sectarians, as the above quota-
tion of Hummelberg indicates.43 It is not difficult to imagine why this
might be. He had been part of radical cells in the Zurich area and prob-
ably would have gravitated towards them again in Augsburg. He makes
remarks against Rhegius congregation at St. Anna that evince a sectar-
ian understanding of the church. He charges Rhegius with imagining a
utopian church of which he is pastorfor it is necessary to pretend
when a true church is lacking.44 Apparently Htzer did not regard
Rhegius congregation at St. Anna as a real church. This means that a
group of people gathered under an officially called pastor who preaches
(in an Evangelical sense, no less) and distributes the sacraments does
not necessarily meet the requirements of a real church. The true church
need not have any connection with the public, civic, government-sanc-
tioned, ecclesiastical institution commonly thought of as the church.
The characteristics of the true church appear more clearly in Htzers
pamphlet, Von den evangelischen Zechen und von der Christen Red aus
heiliger Geschrift, published by his friend Silvan Otmar in the summer
of 1525 during Htzers stay in Augsburg.
In this moralizing pamphlet, Htzer laments the sorts of debauched,
riotous gatherings that take place among Evangelicals. Apparently
these Evangelical drinking parties were not uncommon in Augsburg.
Htzer bemoans their popularity, writing:
Isnt it so that drinking and boozing, the feasting everywhere, is falsely
associated with the Gospel, for it is called Evangelical carousing? Just as
though it were proper for Evangelicals to rage and rave, booze, and raise
a racket, like the undisciplined scoundrels on St. Martins day? For the
one who makes a racket and rages with the greatest coarseness and vul-
garity, who can tell all men what is wrong with them, who acts most disa-
greeably (as one labels the Papists), he is then the most Evangelical.
43
On Hummelberg, see note 29 above.
44
Exordium adest in Hesso, et quod utopiensem ecclesiam finxerit, cuius pastor
sit. Belle agit; nam aliam non habet eccclesiam. Necessarium est fingere, ubi verum
[sic] caret. Pastor est, quemadmodum suffraganei episcopi sunt, apud Antipodas scili-
cet (ZW 8, Nr. 383, 362, ll. 1013).
168 chapter four
Whether all this is actually Evangelical or not does not require much
demonstration, for it comes from the devil and not from God.45
Htzer apparently knows of which he speaks, for he admits that he has
often been invited to and has attended these gatherings, although now
he claims that it caused him more remorse than joy after going to such
a function.46 And while, in the tradition of moralizing polemic, he may
be overstating the severity of the scandal to make his point, the exist-
ence and general tenor of these meetings are not in doubt. He also has
the charges of his Catholic opponents ringing in his ears: One sees no
improvement in [the new Christians]. They speak well of God and of
brotherly love but they dont help anybody.47 However, he knows the
reluctance of his Evangelical audience to submit to a morally strict
regimen. They argue that you have to let the water flow a bit, or it will
break free and cause destruction, that getting drunk might not be
appropriate, but coming together for some companionship and a bit of
social drinking does not do any harm, that a little merrymaking never
hurt any one, and so forth.48
Htzer, however, has no intention of making accommodations to
the weakness of the flesh, for he has something much more glorious in
mind than riotous drinking parties. He has, indeed, a vision of the true
church to offer. The true Christian community must be characterized
by fervent devotion to God, love and unity among the members, and
the strict enforcement of moral purity. He explains:
The congregation of Christians should come together out of fervent love,
to strengthen the weak with Gods Word, as Paul and Barnabas did at
Lycia, Iconium, and Antioch where they strengthened the souls of the
disciples and encouraged them to stand fast in the faith. For one must
enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations. Paul did the
same thing at Troas, where he taught till midnight. In this manner did
45
Ists nit also? Das Zechen vnd sauffen / die pangketen allenthalben / werden
verklgt mit dem Euangelio / dann man hait es ye Euangelische zechen? gleich als ob
den euangelischen gebre wten / toben / sauffen / vnd schreyen / wie die hppenbu-
ben an Sanct Martins tag / Da ist dann der amm Euangelischsten / der am aller grob-
sten / am aller vnzchtigisten schreyt vnnd wtet / der allen menschen iren mangel
sagen kan / die widerwertigen (als man die Papisten nennt) schentziern / Ob das
Euangelisch sey oder nit / bedarff nit vil bewerens / dan es vomm Tefel / vnd nit von
Gott kompt (Htzer, Zechen, a4r-v). See also Khler, Fiche 70, Nr. 185.
46
Htzer, Zechen, a2v.
47
[M]an sicht kain besserung an inen / Sy reden wol vil von Gott / vnd von der
brderliche liebe / aber sy helffen nyemandts etc. (Htzer, Zechen, c2v).
48
Htzer, Zechen, a3v.
the Christians use their gatherings, as could clearly be seen and read
throughout the Acts of the Apostles. One reads how they continued eve-
rywhere unified in the word and prayer, comforting and encouraging
each other, diligently calling on God to grant grace and power to his little
group to remain strong and undisturbed in the face of opposition. That
was their joy. For this they came togethernot as we do, for plentiful
drinkbut for Gods will. Now, compare our gatherings with their gath-
erings, and one would soon see whether our carousings are Evangelical
or not.49
Htzer is calling for his readers to model their gatherings after the
example set by the small persecuted churches in apostolic times, as
described in the Acts of the Apostles. The gathering of the Christian
congregation in Augsburg must be dominated by spiritual concerns
and heartfelt devotion. Htzer seems to be involved in the difficult task
of turning what was for most people primarily a social, diversionary,
tension-releasing activity into a focused religious gathering. Htzer,
quoting from 1 Peter 4, also stipulates that these gatherings display
brotherly love, humility, and the exercise of spiritual gifts.50 The men-
tion of spiritual gifts makes even clearer that Htzer is speaking about
an independently functioning Christian congregation, presumably
with anti-clerical and anti-hierarchical convictions. Finally, the church
must be morally pure and free from all public sinners. Quoting from 1
Corinthinas 5, Htzer puts his readers on notice that a brother who
calls himself a Christian and is sexually immoral, greedy, an idol wor-
shiper, a reviler, a drunkard, or a robber must be excommunicated
from the community, since he is not beneficial but harmful to the con-
gregation of God (Gottes gemein).51
49
Der Christen versamlung / soll au hitziger liebe geschehen / die schwachen /
mit Gottes worz zustercken / wie Paulus vnd Barnabas / zu Lystra / Iconio / vnd
Antiochia theten / das sy der Jungern Selen sterckten / sy ermanende / das sy bestnden
imm Glauben / dann / man mte durch vil trbseligkait in Gottes Reich geen. Also
hatt auch Paulus gethon / zu Troade / do er bi auff mitnacht gelert hat. Also haben die
Christen in ir zusamenkomen braucht / wie dann haiter hin vnd wider in der Aposteln
geschicht gesehen vnd gelesen wrdt / wie sy allenthalben ainhellig imm wort vnnd
gebett beharret seind / ain ander getrst vnd gesterckt / Gott ernstlich angerfft / das
er seinem klainen heflin gnad vnd krafft verliehe / in widerwertigkait vest vnd vnuer-
rickt zubleyben / Das seind ire freden gewesen / Also seind sy zusamen kommen / nit
wie wir / nit vmb zymlicher trnck willen / sonder vmb Gottes willen. Vergleich nun
vnsere zusammenkommung vnd ire versamlung mitainander / so hatt man bald gese-
hen / ob vnsere Zechen Euangelish / oder nit / seyend (Htzer, Zechen, a4r-v).
50
Htzer, Zechen, b3r.
51
Htzer, Zechen, b3v.
170 chapter four
Here, in the final sentences of his section on Evangelical carousing,

Htzer chooses to dispel all doubt that he is presenting a model for the
true church of Augsburg by using the term Gottes gemein to refer to
the gathering of Christians. Previously, he had always used the terms
Versammlung or Zusammenkommung, words with no specific ecclesi-
astical overtones, to refer to the gatherings. Htzer would have been
well aware, however, that Gemeine Gottes was the term that Luther, in
his September Testament, used, among other places, in his transla-
tions of Pauls salutary address to the Corinthian church at the begin-
ning of 1 and 2 Corinthians. The original Greek phrase
had been rendered by the vulgate cclesia Dei (in English, Church
of God). It had been a conscious decision on the part of Luther to
consistently render as Gemeinde instead of Kirche. By using
this theologically loaded term at the end of his presentation, Htzer
indicated that he was addressing the church of God at Augsburg.
What, then, can we learn from the experiences and writings of
Htzer about the sectarians in Augsburg at the end of 1525? First,
regarding the Eucharist, we learn that the sectarians still rallied around
opposition to the doctrine of the Real Presence. Htzer, a man for
whom the establishment of a symbolic understanding of Christs pres-
ence in the Eucharist was the key to dismantling what he understood
to be all the worst elements of papal religion, including the pretensions
of a mediating priesthood, by all accounts received a warm reception
in Augsburg. Oecolampadius mentions on a number of occasions the
loyal friendships that Htzer established in the city.52 Htzer himself
pleads with Zwingli in his own name and in the name of many other
men of good faith to write against Rhegius. Finally, Hummelberg, not
at all sympathetic towards Htzer, admits that when Htzer was driven
out of Augsburg over his strenuous advocacy of a symbolic interpreta-
tion of the Lords Supper, there were tears for Htzer but rage and irri-
tation towards Rhegius.53 Apparently his willingness to challenge
Rhegius over the Eucharist brought him additional goodwill, especially
when it was perceived that Rhegius was misusing his position in the
city to drive out an opponent.
52
Hezerum tibi commendo, ab Augustanis amicis non parum ob fidem dilectum
(Oecolampadius to Zwingli, Basel, November 4 (1525), ZW 8, Nr. 404, 417, ll. 1314).
53
Blaurer, Briefwechsel, Nr. 97, 124.
Not all of Htzers friends and supporters were necessarily sectari-

ans, but it is likely that many of them were. For evidence of this, one
may look to a strange inconsistency in the letter of Michael
Hummelberg. He begins by referring to Htzter as the glorious little
defender of the sect of the Anabaptists (rebaptizatorum sectae glorio-
sulus propugnator), then proceeds to describe Htzers exploits
defending the symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. Htzers activ-
ities reached a climax when Rhegius preached a sermon wresting
away from the Karlstadtians the phrase from John 6:63, The flesh is of
no avail. As indicated in the last chapter, Karlstadt was particularly
popular in Augsburg among sacramentarian sectarians, and it is likely
that Rhegius was continuing his verbal assault on their views by taking
issue with their interpretation of a favorite proof text. Htzer himself
testifies to the continuing popularity of Karlstadt among the sacra-
mentarians of Augsburg. He writes to Zwingli, It is astonishing how
much [Rhegius] hates those who adhere either to you or to Karlstadt
(as we say to the people) in this article of the Eucharist.54 Htzer real-
ized that among the people Karlstadt, not Zwingli, was respected as the
champion of the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. If he was
going to discuss the Eucharist in a way that resonated with their per-
spective, he would have to accept this convention. After the assault by
Rhegius, Htzer buoyed the spirits of his sectarians by mocking and
insulting Rhegius among them.55 This action caused Rhegius to chal-
lenge Htzer to a public disputation.
Hummelberg was speaking accurately when he characterized Htzer
as the defender of an Augsburg sectjust not a sect of Anabaptists. He
probably included the Anabaptist charge simply as a way of delegiti-
mizing Htzers activity. What Htzer had become was the hero of a
sect of sacramentarians. With no prominent members in their ranks,
under assault by Rhegius and perhaps others, without standing or
power in the city (almost by definition so), they embraced a learned,
well-connected, feisty young man ready to champion their cause.
Thisinsight into Htzers relation to the sectarians reinforces the image
of them as a group of uninfluential lay people, alienated from the
54
Mirum quam odiat eos, qui aut tibi aut Carolstadio, ut vulgo dicimus, adherent
in hoc articulo de (ZW 8, Nr. 383, 362, ll. 24).
55
[Illum] cavillaretur et reprehenderet apud sectatores suos (Blaurer, Briefwechsel,
Nr. 94, 124).
172 chapter four
institutional church and united in a common opposition to the doc-

trine of the Real Presence.
These gatherings did not yet conform to the sectarian ideal, either in
their structure or in their view on the need for moral improvement.
What sort of people attended the vilified Evangelical carousings is not
entirely clear. On the one hand, the attendees were perceived by
Catholic opponents as representative of the Evangelical cause in gen-
eral, so they were probably not just composed of sectarians. That these
events were popularly known as Evangelical carousings also indicates
that they were attended by more opponents of the old faith than just
those individuals who could be identified as sectarians. On the other
hand, Htzer seems to have held out real hope that these events could
be changed into a full-fledged sectarian church, complete with a broad
exercise of spiritual gifts within the community, moral rigor, and
clearly delineated boundaries between it and the outside, enforced by
the ban.
The evidence thus points to a conclusion that these were mixed
groups, made up partially of sectarians who might be attracted to his
program and partially of other more conventional Evangelicals who
would eventually gravitate back to the institutional church. In fact,
Htzer might be described in this pamphlet as engaged in an activity
similar to that pursued by Keller in his 1525 pamphlet, Etlich Sermones
von dem Nachtmahl Christi. Both were arguing before a group made
up of supporters and potential supporters, advocating their vision for
the church in Augsburg. The sacramentarian sect had come into being
less than a year before, and its organizational structure seemed loose at
best. Furthermore, any principle regarding the need to draw consist-
ent, personal ethical implications from the Gospel had not yet been
institutionalized within the group. Although Htzer had some base of
support for his model, he also had some work to do. The degree of
progress he made during his remaining time in Augsburg cannot be
determined with any certainty. Evidence of increasing organization
and exclusiveness of the sectarians in Augsburg indicates, however,
that Htzers efforts would come to bear fruit.
Urbanus Rhegius: The Merchant Preacher of Augsburg
If the popular response to Rhegius conflict with Htzer revealed wide-

spread affection for Htzer, it revealed the opposite for Rhegius.
Rhegius was never a particularly sympathetic figure among the non-

elite of Augsburg. Called by Konrad Grebel the Kaufmannsprediger zu
Augsburg (merchant-preacher of Augsburg),56 his church of St. Anna
did serve one of the wealthier sections of the city. The designation was
not meant to be complimentary, and there is clear indication that this
image did not work to his advantage among a significant section of the
populace.
Rhegius reports an incident to his colleague, Johannes Frosch, that
highlights the tense relationship between himself and the sacramen-
tarian laity.57 He laments,
An uneducated man who had not even learned the basics quite imperi-
ously demanded that I account for my faith and, among other things,
grilled me on whether I believed the body of Christ to be present in the
Supper. I answered that the body and blood of the Lord were present.
Then, smiling, he began reciting to me the Lords Prayer: Our Father
who art in heaven. If, he said he is in heaven, how can he be on earth
at the same time? And also I, who am here talking to you, how could I be
outside the city at the same time? I encourage this most presumptu-
ous man and pseudo-theologian not to examine the mysteries of the
scripture and the power of omnipotent God according to the measure of
human reason. I warn that there are very many other things which are
required for a sound understanding of this subject, and that if these were
neglected, one could not achieve certain knowledge and an accurate
conclusion in this matter. What else can I say? This man was puffed up
beyond measure with this extraordinary knowledge that the Lord is in
Heaven and that Christ had departed for the Father. And meanwhile
there are those who incredibly are pleased by this most senseless bold-
ness of the ignorant and, depending on which, they show that they are
only seeking after the applause of the rabble.58
56
Cited in Herman Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, vol. 2 (Leipzig:
Friedrich Brandstetter, 1905; reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graff, 1968), 302 (page cita-
tions are to the reprint edition).
57
The account is found in the introductory section of Rhegius 1528 work, Materia
cogitandi de toto missae negotio. Partim ex scripturis sanctis, partim ex priscae Ecclesiae
ruinis eruta, conscriptaque ad Iohannem Ramam Theologum, in Opera Urbani Regii
latine edita, ed. Ernst Regius, vol. 1 (Nuremberg: 1562). The context of the quote is
Rhegius argument to Frosch that the meaning of the Bible must not be left open to
interpretation, but rather that church councils composed of learned theologians
should rule on the meaning of Scripture.
58
Homo illiteratus et qui ne elementa quidem prima novit, imperiose admodum
rationem fidei meae exegit atque Ego adesse aio corpus et sanguinem domini. Mox, ille
subridens, orationem mihi dominicam occinebat: Pater noster qui es in coelis. Si, (in-
quit) in coelis est, quomodo simul in terris esse poterit? Nam & ego hic tecum sum,
quomodo simul extra urbem fuero, qui tibi iam loquor? [] Ego confidentissimum
174 chapter four
Rhegius may have had this exact encounter, or this man may be a com-
posite image emerging from a series of unpleasant interactions he had
experienced over the years. In any case, Rhegius raw emotions, his
expression of bitterness and frustration, are an indication that he is
drawing from a collection of genuine personal encounters with, in his
mind, presumptuous, uneducated sacramentarians, who do not regard
his office or his learning, who pester him with stupid proofs of their
mistaken opinions, who turn a deaf ear to his caution that careful, eru-
dite learning is necessary to understand these complex issues. In his
telling of it, this sacramentarians attitude projected condescension and
disdain, and, by the language that Rhegius uses, illiteratus, inflatus,
rudus, stupidissimus, vulgus, it is clear that the sentiment is recipro-
cated. One could conclude that from these sorts of encounters an
image would emerge of an arrogant, elitist cleric, hostile to the inter-
ests of the common laity and to their participation in the church.
The pamphlet Clag etlicher Brder von der groen Ungerechtigkeit, so
Endresen Bodenstein jetzo vom Luther geschieht (1525) by Valentin
Ickelshamer enshrines just this image of Rhegius in print.59 Ickelshamer,
a preacher in the Franciscan church in Rothenburg ob der Tauber and
a staunch supporter of Karlstadt, wrote primarily against Luther for
(according to Ickelshamer) having Karlstadt expelled from electoral
Saxony due to his rejection of the doctrine of the Real Presence. He
does take a moment, however, to paint an unforgettable picture of
Rhegius and his ilk. He charges:
Urbanus Rhegius and other well paid preachers will not withhold their
help from you [Luther] in this matter. They certainly prove with their
arrogant writing and preaching against Karlstadt that they await a fitting
praise, where they displayed their audacity first, because one would not
rightly find it on the cushioned seats in the painted rooms (since you
want to have painted idolatrous images surrounding you). A lowly, bat-
tered Christian (which is the true kind of Christian) would obviously
also not wear silver or gold buckles on his belt and on his purse or wear
large sack-sleeves made of expensive cloth on his shirt. Nor would one
hominem & pseudotheologum hortor, ne ad rationis aequilibrium humanae mysteria

scripturae & potentiam Dei omnipotentis exigat, esse moneo permulta alia, quae ad
huius quaestionis sanum intellectum faciant, quibus neglectis non possit rei quaesitae
certa noticia, veraque sententia haberi, Quid multa? Homo ille supra modum inflatus
magnifica hac scientia, qui sciret Dominum in coelis esse, & Christum abiisse ad
patrem, [] Et sunt interim, quibus haec rudium audacia stupidissima mire placet,
qua freti quiduis docent, solum vulgi plausum captantes (Ibid., 59r).
59
Laube, Flugschriften (15181524), 7486. Also in Khler, Fiche 991, Nr. 2513.
take a salary of 200 guilders a year for preaching. And why not? Because
there are too many poor people everywhere who do not have any alms
toeat.60
This same Rhegius, living in luxury, oblivious to the concerns of the
poor, ready to help Luther persecute Karlstadt, was, moreover, intent
on establishing a new article of faith, namely, that one must believe that
Christs flesh and blood are in the sacrament.61
This pamphlet went through two publication runs in Augsburg in
1525 and would have helped to reinforce already negative perceptions
of Rhegius in the city, especially among the supporters of Karlstadt.
While perhaps harmful to Rhegius personally, if effective, it would
have been even more damaging to the Lutheran cause. Rhegius was the
public spokesman for the doctrine of the Real Presence in 1525, and to
have that cause associated with a wealthy, callous clerical elite would
have made the doctrine less appealing to many. It only would have
reinforced the sacramentarians main argument against the Evangelical
supporters of a Real Presence, an argument developed by Karlstadt
himself and soon adopted by others. The doctrine was not about pro-
viding consolation to troubled souls, but about preserving the wealth
and status of the clerical estate (whether papist or Evangelical). For
these lay brethren, by taking a position that maintained a symbolic
understanding of Christs presence in the Eucharist, they were able to
deny the clergy the ideological basis for their claims to privilege.
Rhegius had, in fact, stumbled into a trap, one that he might have
avoided had he been more careful. As the Schilling affair demonstrated,
there was a standing perception within the city that the political, cleri-
cal, and economic elites were joined together in a conspiracy to main-
tain their wealth and status and that the Evangelical movement was in
60
Urbanus Regius, und andere wol besolte prediger, werden dir ire hilff in diser
sach nit entziehen, sy beweysen wol mit irem hoffertigem schreiben und predigen
wider Carolstaten, das sy ains dapffern lobs warten seyn, wa sy ir kenhait am ersten
erzeygten. Weil man auff dem pfulmen sitzt in den gemalten stblein (dann du wilt ye
gemalte gtzische bildnu bey dir haben) wurd mans nit recht treffen, ain nidriger
und zerschlagner christ (wlcher allain ain christ ist) wurd freylich auch nit silbere
oder gldene spangen auf dem grtel tragen, und auf der taschen, noch grosse sack
ermel von kostlichem tuch an den rocken tragen. Nymbt auch ainer ain jar nit zway-
hundert glden das er predit? [question mark not in original text] Warumb? Es seyn
der armen zu vil allenthalben, die nitt partecken zu essen haben (Adolf Laube, ed.,
Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg zum Tuferreich (15261535), [hereafter Laube,
Flugschriften (15261535)], vol. 1 [Berlin: Akademie Verlag: Berlin, 1992], 77).
61
Laube, Flugschriften (15261535), 80.
176 chapter four
some sense opposed to this nexus of power. Seckler Ott, who took part
in the Schilling affair, remarked under later interrogation, We have
been always Evangelical, and that we still are. But, it is noteworthy that
we have been accused of many lies. If one [that is, his interrogators]
wanted to follow the Gospel, then we would have to be like brothers.
But under these circumstances we are [in your eyes] like the devil. And
who is at fault for this? No one other than the mayors and the dishon-
orable priests, and the rich. They have property and money linked to
each other but dont have even a good word to say to us!62 For Ott, the
interlocking relationship of the three civic hierarchiespolitical
(mayors), religious (dishonorable priests), and economic (the
rich)was self-evident.
The Evangelical preachers were probably given the benefit of a doubt
that they would not be on the side of what was perceived as a group of
mutually reinforcing civic hierarchies. However, the prototype existed
of a clerical elite in league with the other powers in the city to preserve
their collective wealth and prestige. If any one of the new Evangelical
preachers began to take on the hue of the old clerical establishment, he
could quickly be identified with his predecessors, and all the negative
perceptions regarding the old clergy could be immediately applied to
him. Rhegius apparently did just that. This fact very likely left the
impression that the attempt of Rhegius and those like him to defend
the doctrine of the Real Presence was nothing more than an effort to
secure the benefits that had traditionally accrued to his estate. This
helps to explain the continuing migration among the laity away from
this position and towards those preachers who expounded a symbolic
interpretation of the Lords Supper.
There is no more trenchant critic of this supposed cynical manipula-
tion of Christian truth by Evangelical preachers than Johann Schnewyl,
a former priest in Strasbourg who accepted citizenship there in 1525
and apparently migrated to Augsburg sometime in 1526.63 Schnewyl,
an ardent supporter of Zwingli and his interpretation of the Lords
Supper, published three pamphlets, all in Augsburg and all at least
62
Wir sein ye und ye evangelisch gewesen, das sein wir noch. Aber merklich man
hat uns vil liegen vorgesagt. Wann man dem Evangeli wolt nach geen, miste wir sein
wie die bruder. Also sein wir wie die teufel. [Und] wer ist schuldig daran [?] Niemand
den die Brgermeister und die erlosen pfaffe[n] und die Reichen, die haben gut und
gelt bei ainander und geben uns kain gut wort (cited in Rogge, Nutzen, 273).
63
On Schnewyl, see Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 277278; and Schottenloher,
Ulhart, 3754 (Schottenloher misidentifies Schnewyl with Haug Marschalck).
touching on the theme of the Eucharist. His first treatise, published on

August 24, 1526, and entitled Wider die unmilde Verdammung, was a
scurrilous assault on Jakob Strau, collegiate preacher in Baden and
author of a treatise critical of Zwinglis Eucharistic theology, entitled
Wider den unmilden Irrtum Meister Ulrich Zwinglins.
The pamphlet, which is filled mostly with insults and provocations
directed at Strau, does lay out Schnewyls symbolic interpretation of
the Lords Supper. He states, Further, we believe that the holy blood
and flesh of Christ is to be sought neither in heaven nor on earth, and
also not bound in the bread and wine of the Lord. It has position and
place only in the mind and in the memory of the noble, faithful
Christian soul.64
Most importantly, the pamphlet establishes Augsburg as Schnewyls
residence in the fall of 1526. Schnewyl remarks that it was our
Rhegius who had shown him Strau pamphlet, from which Rhegius
had scratched out a few lines.65 Schnewyl had obviously established a
relationship with the Augsburg preacher.
His second pamphlet, Der Blinden Fhrer bin ich genannt, was pub-
lished sometime later in 1526 by the Augsburg printer Philipp Ulhart.
The pamphlet is primarily a diatribe against the monks (like Strau)
and their false teaching. And while he claims not to have wished to
discuss the Lords Supper in the treatise, he declares himself ready to
publicly confess his faith, which he had already expressed on numer-
ous occasions to the brethren. He encourages his readers to contem-
plate the inexpressible grace and gift of God so that the internal fire of
divine love might be ignited and burn brighter. Then they will forgive
all the misdeeds of their neighbors and be unified with their brothers
and fellow members in the spiritual body of Christ.66 Then one can
declare this fact in the Lords Supper:
Of which for a true witness of unity and love, we all eat communally of
the Lords bread and the Lords wine. As often as we receive a good work
in us, we receive truly the Lord God. Who will then doubt that when we
do this in remembrance of him, through which (as already said) the
heart burns in love for him, he [sic] receives Christ? And he does not
64
Weytter so glauben wir das / das hayligen blut vnd flaisch Christi / weder in
himel noch auff erd zu suchen ist / auch nit anfencklich in brot vnd wein des herrens /
hat allain stat vnnd blatz in dem gemt / vnd der gedechtnis der edlen Christglaubigen
selen (Schnewyl, Verdammung, b2r). Also in Khler, Fiche 1549, Nr. 4018.
65
Schnewyl, Verdammung, a2r-v.
66
Schnewyl, Blinden Fhrer, e1r-v. Also in Khler, Fiche 1124, Nr. 1868.
178 chapter four
receive Christ alone, [but also] the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
and not because of the wine and the bread, but because of love and faith.
For love and faith [are] more than the Lords Supper. We can certainly be
saved without the Lords Supper, but not without love and faith.67
Schnewyl goes on to maintain that those who believe Christ to be pre-
sent as true God and man, truly and essentially in the bread, do not
receive Christ because of their pagan faith.68
For Schnewyl the themes surrounding the Lords Supper are love
and unity. That unity should already have been effected among the
members of the congregation before they come together to celebrate
the Lords Supper. That love should continue to burn as the congrega-
tion contemplates Christs death during the celebration, which also
serves to declare the existence of love and unity within the Christian
fellowship. Excluded from this fellowship of love are those who believe
they eat the literal body and blood of Christ. They are deceived by their
counterfeit faith.
The pamphlet gives further evidence that Schnewyl continued to
reside in Augsburg after the publication of his pamphlet against Strau.
He reports that, presumably in the intervening time, friends and ene-
mies have been suggesting that he was the author of two pseudony-
mous pamphlets that appeared in Augsburg in 1525. Ein schne
Unterweisung und Lehr, zu betrachten das Nachtmahl Christi, published
under the name Matthus Frey (in actuality, probably Michael Keller),
went through two publication runs, both in Augsburg, one in 1525 and
one in 1526. Antwort dem hochgelehrten Doktor Johann Bugenhagen
auf die Missive, so er an den hochgelehrten Doktor Hesso geschickt was
published in Augsburg, Strasbourg, and Zurich in 1525. It appears that
his name had come up in discussions in Augsburg regarding the
authorship of the pamphlets and that people had been confronting
Schnewyl with their suspicions. Schnewyl takes this opportunity to
deny all connection to the writings.69
67
des zu waren kundtschafft der ainigkait vnnd der liebe / Nyessen wir alle gemain-
klich von des herren brot / vnd des herren weyn / so offt vnd wir ain gutts werck in vns
entpfahen / entpfahen wir warlich Got den herren / wer wolt daran zweyfeln so wir
das thun in seyner gedechtnu / dadurch wie gesagt ist / das hertz brendt inn seyner
leibe / er empfacht Christus ja nit allain Christus / den vatter / den sun / den hailigen
gayst nit von wegen des weyns vnd des brots / Sonder von wegen der liebe / vnd des
glaubens / den die liebe vnd der glaub ist mer denn das Nachtmal / wir mgen wol on
das nachtmal selig werden / aber nit on die lieb vnd glauben (Ibid., e1v).
68
Ibid., e3r-v.
69
Ibid., h3r-v.
In his final pamphlet, however, Wer gern wllt wissen, wie ich Hei,
zu lesen mich htt nit verdrei, also published in Augsburg by Philipp
Ulhart, probably in 1527, Schnewyl takes aim at the new papists, the
preachers who insist that Christ is essentially in the elements. Schnewyl
is outraged that these so-called Evangelical preachers are in effect tear-
ing out the old Mass with one hand and planting a new Mass with the
other.70 Daily they condemn the old mass and beside it erect a new one,
as though their creation should be better than the old, just because it is
said in German.71
This deceptive teaching has caused great damage to peoples souls.
Dying people forget that trusting in Christ is sufficient for salvation
and instead put their trust in the eating of the bread, as though their
salvation depended on it and not on the mercy of God.72 People are led
to believe that they can receive grace and forgiveness of sins through
eating the bread and forget that God alone forgives and reconciles.73
People begin to revere and fear the bread as though it were God him-
self, confused about who or what they should fear, failing to realize that
a Christian need fear nothing other than God alone.74 Why, then,
would these Evangelical preachers promote such a destructive distor-
tion of Christian truth? Schnewyl has a clear answer: greed and lust for
power.
[They destroy and condemn the Christian faith] so that the clear and
plain understanding of the word this is my body not see the light of
day, so that the dressed up priesthood (from which we suffer and are in
distress, and from which all unhappiness arises) not perish. This priest-
hood alone has appropriated power for itself over heaven and hell, and
especially over the body of Christ, to manipulate and to touch it, to con-
trol its distribution, taking it from one, giving it to another, and to watch
over it. Through this they are esteemed much more worthy, because they
are those who elevate and lower the body of Christ. Therefore they are
held to be gods, irrespective of the lives they lead. This has, for a long
time, led to great irritation among young and old. I hope to God that He
will not allow it much longer, although this useless, oiled-up crowd
increases daily to the great detriment and burdening of many poor men
who, through their bloody sweat, must raise their fattened pigs for the
70
Hereafter Schnewyl, Wer gern wllt wissen, in Laube, Flugschriften (15261535),
170.
71
Ibid., 172.
72
Ibid., 175.
73
Ibid., 176.
74
Ibid., 177.
180 chapter four
devil, who gives them no thanks. For they regard their dogs as more
honorable and worthy than the poor people.75
A more stinging, passionate, and comprehensive critique of Evangelical
preachers who argue for Christs presence in the elements of the
Eucharist can hardly be found. Schnewyl adopts and expands on
Karlstadts basic critique from 1524 that any presence of Christ in the
elements by necessity places the officiator in a mediating role, creating
and controlling access to the benefits contained in the elements.
Schnewyl argues that the decision of the Lutheran preachers to affirm
Christs presence in the consecrated elements is purely an expression of
their desire to maintain for themselves the powers and prerogatives of
the old papist order. They want to remain the gatekeepers standing
between God and the laity, alone allowed to handle the holy elements,
and alone able to decide who is worthy to receive them. Such a position
increases their esteem and authority among the people and creates the
opportunity for the clergy to exploit them. They imitate the technique
of the Babylonians and many other pagan peoples who describe the
priests of their idols in a way that makes then appear fierce and terrify-
ing. This causes the poor people to fear them and honor them with
gifts and to act with great diligence so that the priests can live in care-
free luxury, indulgence, and gluttony.76
Such a characterization underscores the danger for Evangelical
clergy, demonstrated in the case of Urbanus Rhegius, of being identi-
fied with the old order of Catholic clergy. When this happens, they risk
being tarred with the traditional anti-clerical accusations that they
are greedy, immoral, power-hungry deceivers who want to control
the religious destiny of the laity. The Lutheran clergy of Augsburg,
75
Das der hell unnd klar verstand der wort: das ist meyn leyb, nit an tag kumm,
den man lange zeyt undertruckt hatt, darmit das auffgemutzt priesterthumb, darvon
wir leyden und not haben, und alles unglck entsteet, das das selb nit undergieng,
welchs allain selbs angenommer gwalt ber hell und himel, und vorab ber den leyb
Christi, den zu handlen, tractieren, dispensieren, dem nemen, disem geben, auffen-
thalten hatt, dadurch hoch wirdiger geacht, sy seyen die, die den leib Christi heben
und legen. Darumb fr gtter gehalten, unangesehen ir leben wie das ist, yetzt lange
zeyt her gefurt zu grosser ergernus jung und alt das ich dann hoff zu Got er werds nit
lenger leyden, wiewol sich noch tglich mert der unntz geschmirbt hauff, zu grossem
schaden, und beschwerung viler armen durch welcher blutiger schway dem tefel
sein mst schwein mssen gezogen werden, sonder allen danck, die ire hund erlicher
und wirdiger halten, dann sy die armen let (Laube, Flugschriften (15261535),
171172).
76
Laube, Flugschriften (15261535), 177.
especially when they seemed so well connected to the citys political

and economic elite, were left particularly open to this charge.
While there is no proof that Schnewyl remained in Augsburg in
1527, it seems plausible that he did (Kaufmann speculates that he may
have remained as a corrector in the print shop of Philipp Ulhart). He
had obviously made some friends and was able to find ready publishers
for his works. As in the case of Htzer in 1524, the decision may have
turned on whether he could earn enough money to survive. However,
even if he were not living in Augsburg at the time of the pamphlets
publication, he would have left the city less than a year before. The
writing reflected his experience in Augsburg and seems to fit the situ-
ation there well. Further, the publication in Augsburg of this pamphlet,
exposing Rhegius and others teaching on the Real Presence as noth-
ing more than a cynical power grab, would have played a role in
increasing the reluctance of the laity to accept the Lutheran preachers
teaching on this position. It also probably reflected a sentiment that
Schnewyl had encountered during his stay in the city.
Whether Schnewyl gravitated more towards the sectarians or
towards the institutional sacramentarians during his stay in Augsburg
cannot be demonstrated with hard evidence. Of course, his reference
to the brethren to whom he declared his faith regarding the Eucharist
suggests that he may have been part of a selective religious fellowship,
but it does not provide absolute proof. Further, if we posit that Schnewyl
and the brethren discussed the sorts of charges that appear in the
1527 pamphlet before it was actually published, then the likelihood
increases that Schnewyl was involved with the sectarians, shaping and
reflecting their views.
There was no love between Keller and the Lutheran preachers in the
city. Wolf Beckinger, a religious refugee living in Augsburg, reports to
Zwingli on December 2, 1528, that the three Lutheran doctors were
very hateful towards Keller.77 It is unlikely that Keller felt much affec-
tion for them either. But they were the city preachers and did have to
work together. In April 1527 they managed to arrive at a compromise
document on the Eucharist to be read from the city pulpits.78 In the
same year, they also worked in conjunction to combat the Anabaptist
threat. It is unlikely that Keller would have encouraged or wanted to be
77
ZW 9, Nr. 781, 609, ll. 1819.
78
For a copy of this document, see ZW 9, 136137.
182 chapter four
associated with such a vicious attack on his fellow Evangelical preach-

ers. He had a more subtle approach to winning over supporters than
comparing the Lutheran preachers to the priests of Babylonian idols.
This uncompromising assault on the supposedly oppressive concen-
trations of power within the city fits much more readily into a sectarian
context, characterized by a sense of alienation and powerlessness over
against the civic elites, who used hierarchical ideologies to control
their access to the political, religious, and economic goods, to which
Augsburg citizens felt entitled. Schnewyls statements reflect some of
the currents and thought patterns that were alive within the sacramen-
tarian sects of Augsburg in 1526. The Eucharistic theology was driven
by equal parts of hope for a Christian community knit together by love
and unity, and of anger, resentment, and suspicion towards an elevated
Lutheran clergy (in league with the political and economic elite) that
seemed to embody all of the traits of the Catholic clergy that had just
been thrown off.
Developments among the Sectarians in 1526
In 1526 Anabaptism came to Augsburg. Hans Denck had arrived in the

city on September 15, 1525, and remained until October 1526, when
he left rather than face a Rhegius-led inquiry into his faith before the
city council. On the recommendation of Sebastian von Freyburg and
Georg Regel, he was given permission to teach foreign languages
(Greek and Latin) in the city. He had been exiled from Nuremberg on
January 21 of that year, after having been caught up in the dragnet sur-
rounding the arrest and interrogation of three godless painters.
Denck provided confusing but obviously heretical answers to ques-
tions regarding the Scripture and the sacraments, and the city preach-
ers recommended his expulsion.79 After a possible stay in Mhlhausen
79
For a discussion of Dencks relationship to the circle of spiritualist painters, see
Theodore Kolde, Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Nrnberg, Beitrge zur
bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 8 (1902): 130, 4972. Theodore Kolde provides a flawed
edition of the entire proceedings involving all the participants in Zum Prozess des
Johann Denk und der drei gottlosen Maler von Nrnberg, in Kirchengeschichtliche
Studien: Hermann Reuter zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. Theodore Brieger et al.
(Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1888), 228250. For a cleaner edition of
Dencks Confession, which was presented to the city council during his imprisonment,
and from which we obtain most of our information about his views during this
period, see Clarence Bauman, The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and
and a murky relationship to the events surrounding the Peasants War,

he arrived in St. Gall sometime after June 7, 1525. There was a thriving
Anabaptist movement there, and records show that Denck was in con-
tact with the Anabaptists, although the level of his association with
them is ambiguous.80 After Dencks arrival in Augsburg, nothing indi-
cates that he became involved with sectarian groups in the city,
although he may well have.
The next appearance of Denck in the sources coincides with the first
recorded believers baptism in Augsburg. According to the Augsburg
interrogation records of Hans Hut from September 16, 1527, Hut had
visited Augsburg around Pentecost (May 20) 1526.81 During his first of
three trips to Augsburg, he visited Denck, whose acquaintance he had
made when Denck was a schoolteacher in Nuremberg and Hut was a
bookseller. Hut had been contemplating believers baptism since he
had conducted a conversation on the issue with a miller, a tailor, and a
clothmaker outside of Wittenberg during a time when Hut was trave-
ling in and out of Wittenberg, presumably engaged in the book trade.
While in the city, he had the opportunity to hear some sermons
andattend some lectures. He was, however, greatly disturbed by the
failure of the Wittenberg preaching to effect moral improvement in
peoples lives. Mulling over these issues, he entered Augsburg, where
Translation of Key Texts, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 47 (Leiden:

E. J. Brill, 1991), 5167. The author also provides a succinct biography of Denck.
Denck comes across during this period as a sensitive, troubled spiritualist. He con-
fesses that he is a wretched man, subject to all the sickness of body and soul. However,
he senses that there is something within him that opposes his natural wickedness. He
is certain that this thing is the truth, and he is determined to follow it wherever it leads.
It has driven him to read the Scriptures, and in them he has found a witness that cor-
responds to that thing which has compelled him. It is the word of God that floods the
heart of man, causing him to despair. If one allows oneself to be baptized into the death
of Christ, one will be brought back to life. Finally, one must be purified by the consum-
ing fire, which completes the work of Christ. Denck argues that baptism is good but
not necessary for salvation. Dencks section on the Eucharist was obscure enough to
leave even Osiander confused about what Denck meant. Clearly, however, he places
the emphasis on the spiritual eating of the body and blood of Christ. Through this
spiritual communion, certainly not restricted to the Eucharistic meal, the participant
wird durch die liebe gottes gantz vergottet, and gott in im vermenscht. That is to say,
the barrier between divine and human will be overcome within the human soul.
80
For a summary of Dencks life, see Jan J. Kiwiet, The Life of Hans Denck (ca.
15001527), The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 31, 4 (1957): 227259.
81
The most comprehensive study of Huts life and thought is Gottfried Seeba,
Mntzers Erbe: Werck, Leben und Theologie des Hans Hut (hereafter Seeba, Erbe),
Quellen und Forschung zur Reformationsgeschichte (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlag-
shaus, 2002).
184 chapter four
he encountered Denck. Denck and his companion Caspar Ferber dis-

cussed with him the biblical evidence that supported believers bap-
tism. The clinching argument, however, seems to have come from
Ferber, a native of Tyrol. When Ferber spoke at length about certain
brethren who had let themselves be baptized and who led an exceed-
ingly Christian life, Hut was won over and allowed himself to be bap-
tized by Denck on Pentecost 1526.82 Soon after this, he left the city.
It is clear from the foregoing that by spring 1526 Denck had made
the transition to Anabaptism and that he was baptizing converts. Hut,
however, gives no indication that Denck was part of, much less the
leader of, a larger Anabaptist congregation. Gottfried Seeba agrees
that one cannot speak of an Anabaptist community in Augsburg before
spring 1527. He notes that among all the Anabaptists rounded up in
Augsburg between 1527 and 1528, only one claims to have been bap-
tized before spring 1527. Hans Guderian notes that the Strasbourg
Anabaptist Hans Bnderlin claimed in an interrogation to have been
baptized in Augsburg in spring 1526.83
Our other valuable source of information from this period in
Augsburg comes from a letter of Peter Gynoraeus to Zwingli from
August 22, 1526. Gynoraeus, a supporter of Zwingli, had been expelled
recently from Basel, where he was a peoples priest, for his advocacy of
reform according to the Zwinglian model. He journeyed to Augsburg,
where he was living with the printer Sigismund Grimm, also a sup-
porter of Zwingli. Gyronaeus reports on Dencks limited regard for the
Bible and his universalism, and calls him the chief of the Anabaptists.
He further reports that Denck and Balthasar Hubmaier, who visited
the city in April, met together. Apparently Hubmaier had also violated
his recantation of Anabaptism, which he had been forced to swear
before the Zurich authorities released him from prison on April 6,
1526. Whether that means that Hubmaier was actually baptizing peo-
ple in Augsburg during his stay there is unclear. Finally, Hubmaier was
82
From the critical edition of Huts interrogation records in Seeba, Erbe 515516.
Seeba argues that Hut, the disciple of Thomas Mntzer, was following in the tradition
of his teacher, looking earnestly for a pure congregation, a spotless church. Heretofore,
there had been only disappointment. Now, however, he may have been convinced that
he had found what he was looking for (Seeba, Erbe, 201).
83
Hans Guderian, Die Tufer in Augsburg: Ihre Geschichte und ihr Erbe (Pfaffenhofen
W: Ludwig Verlag, 1984), 31. His contention, however, that the letter of Peter
Gynoraeus to Zwingli from August 22, 1526, states that Balthasar Hubmaier baptized
many in Augsburg during this time, is not confirmed in the actual letter.
busy at the task of defaming Zwingli. Hubmaier had invited Gynoraeus

to a meeting (congressus) in which he charged that in his recent arrest
over his Anabaptist activities he had been treated by Zwingli as though
he were in a tyranny. Gynoraeus, for his part, claims to have defended
the honor of Zwingli and left the meeting.84 Whether there were
Anabaptists in these sectarian meetings is not clear.
It does appear, however, that Hubmaier successfully built resent-
ment within the group against the preacher from Zurich who misused
his contacts with the political elite to crack down on religious dissent-
ers. Such charges resonated with their own perception of their clerical
elite. This situation differed, however. In their experience, they had
been able to identify such preachers by their adherence to the doctrine
of the Real Presence, with which they buttressed their status and
wealth. Zwingli, however, promoted a symbolic interpretation of the
Eucharist, just as they did. This concept, that one can be part of the
illegitimate, politically connected, clerical elite without reinforcing
ones status by declaring Christs literal body and blood to be in the ele-
ments was, perhaps, a new one. It was also one to which many would
return over the course of 1527 as Michael Keller joined with the
Lutheran pastors and the city council to form a united front against the
Anabaptists.
Anabaptists in Augsburg in spring 1526 were likely not very numer-
ous, not performing many baptisms, and perhaps loosely organized
around Hans Denck. Further, the disappointment with the Reforma-
tions seeming inability to bring about a moral improvement in the
lives of the people was the principal motivation behind the Anabaptists
decision to establish a religious alternative to the Evangelical reforma-
tion. This concern is evident in the two pamphlets that Denck wrote
and had published during his stay in Augsburg: Vom Gesetz Gottes.
Wie das Gesetz aufgehoben sei und doch erfllt werden mu85 and Was
geredt sei, da die Schrift sagt, Gott tue und mache Gutes und Bses.86 In
them, Denck objects strenuously to the Lutheran emphasis on Christs
substitutionary fulfillment of the law, and on the doctrine of predesti-
nation. Both of these positions provide people with an excuse not to
84
ZW 8, Nr. 520, 688690. See especially 689, ll. 1029.
85
Hereafter Denck, Vom Gesetz Gottes. Reproduced in Laube, Flugschriften (1526
1535), 646666. Also, Khler, Fiche 1124, Nr. 2875.
86
Reproduced in Laube, Flugschriften (15261535), 622645. Also, Khler, Fiche
1126, Nr. 2869.
186 chapter four
follow in Christs footsteps and fulfill the law. He writes in a representa-

tive passage,
You [Lutheran] say: It is impossible for any man to fulfill the law. Answer:
True enough, it is not possible for any man, as a man. But to the faithful
all things are possible, not as men, but as those who are one with God
and free from all creatures, and also in part free from themselves.87
While Denck and Hut, who would become influential in Augsburg in
1527, had orthodox positions (from the sectarian viewpoint) on the
Lords Supper, rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the elements,
their most fundamental concerns lay elsewhere.88 An admittedly later
1528 list of articles compiled from Anabaptists interrogated in
Augsburg indicates that most, but perhaps not all, of the citys
Anabaptists maintained a symbolic understanding of the Lords
Supper: It states that the Anabaptists believe only bread and wine to be
in the Lords Supper, although they are not in all points unified on this
article.89 This is the only of the thirteen articles on which there seem to
have been disunity. A point on which there was no disagreement, how-
ever, was that one could not attend the Eucharist if one retained per-
sonal property.90
For these Anabaptists, communal solidarity and economic justice
(that is, equality) within their closed society was of greater importance
than a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. While a rejection of
clerical mediation, an insistence on moral rigor and social and eco-
nomic justice, and a unified, pure community were characteristic of
Augsburg sectarians, not every position was necessarily held by every
87
Sprichstu: Ey es ist kainem menschen mglich, das gsatz zu erfllen. Antwurt: Ja
kainem menschen als menschen, ist es mglich, den glaubigen aber seind all ding
mglich, nit als menschen, sonder als denen die mit Got ains seind, und aller creatur,
auch ire selber zum tayl ledig (Denck, Vom Gesetz Gottes, 650).
88
Denck states in his misnamed Widerruf from 1528, Der herr Christus nam das
brot im nachtmal, segnets und brachs etc. Al wolt er sagen: Ich hab euch vormals
gesagt, ir sllet mein fleysch essen und mein blut trincken, wolt ir anderst selig werden,
und darbei angezeygt, wie es geystlich und nit, wie es fleysch und blut versteht, gesche-
hen mu. Quoted from Hans Denck, Schriften, Walter Fellmann, ed., Quellen und
Forschung zur Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 24 (Quellen zur Geschichte der Tufer,
vol. 4, part 2) (Gtersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1956), 109110. Huts interrogation
record reports that Er halt nit, das der leib Christi im prot und das plut Christi im
kelch sei, sonder sei es nichtz anders, wie man biher gehalten hab, dann prot und
wein (Seeba, Erbe, 520).
89
Item, im abentmal des Herrn sei allein wein und prot, wiewol sie des stucks an
allen orten nit einich sein (Seebas, Erbe, 514).
90
Item, wer aigne guter hat, mag des herrn nachtmal nit teilhaftig werden (Ibid.).
individual or cell in equal measure. The emphasis of the sacramentar-

ian sects under Htzer differed from that of the Anabaptists a few
yearslater.
The Transition to Anabaptism as Displayed in the Writings of

Eitelhans Langenmantel
Our clearest view into the process by which the sacramentarian sectar-
ians became Anabaptists is provided through the writings of Eitelhans
Langenmantel, the Augsburg patrician who would come to sympathize
with the sectarians and eventually allow himself to be baptized by Hans
Hut. Langenmantels writings provide important insight into the activ-
ities of the sectarians, how the doctrine of the Eucharist functioned in
their attempt to position themselves over against other religious
groups, and the factors that influenced the transition of sectarians to
Anabaptists.
Langenmantel belonged to one of the oldest and most renowned
patrician families in Augsburg.91 His father, of the same name, served
on the city council for many years. Langenmantel married in 1501 and
was widowed in 1507. He never remarried. His marriage produced one
daughter, Anna, who married in 1522. Langenmantels marriage also
helped to place him in comfortable financial circumstances. Langen-
mantel lived in Augsburg and paid taxes there continually from his
majority until he was expelled in 1527. Hans Hut made a short stopo-
ver in Augsburg in spring 1527, staying at Langenmantels house. He
baptized Langenmantel on Shrove Tuesday of that year. Soon after-
wards, the city council arrested Langenmantel, probably because of his
incendiary treatises on the Eucharist. He was released again on March
11 after promising to maintain the peace. Only a few months later,
Langenmantel was caught up in the dragnet associated with the so-
called martyrs synod of August 2024. He was expelled from the city
on October 14, 1527. Langenmantel moved between towns over the
next few months, trying to keep out of the hands of the Swabian League
troops that were scouring the countryside for Anabaptists, even
secretly taking refuge in Augsburg for a couple of weeks. He was
91
For an account of Langenmantels life, see Friedrich Roth, Zur Geschichte der
Widertufer in Oberschwaben. II. Zur Lebensgeschichte EitelEitelhans Langenmantels
von Augsburg, Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins fr Schwaben und Neuberg, 27
(1900): 145.
188 chapter four
captured by the League on April 24, 1528. Interrogated and tortured

over the next few weeks, he recanted his errors on May 7 and received
the merciful punishment of beheading rather than the burning pre-
scribed for a heretic. He was executed on May 8.92
Seven writings of Langenmantel have survived, every one of them
dealing with the subject of the Eucharist. Four were published in
Augsburg between 1526 and early 1527, that is, before his baptism took
place. Three exist only in manuscript form and the date of their com-
position is unclear, although their content does not differ markedly
from the datable treatises. Langenmantels focus on the Eucharist is
further indication of the centrality of this issue for the sectarians in
this period.
In what is almost certainly his first writing from 1526, Di ist ain
anzayg: ainem meinem / etwann vertrawten gesellen / ber seyne harte
widerparte / des Sacrament und annders betreffend, Langenmantel
claims that he has been compelled by some of his trusted comrades to
declare his faith regarding the so-called Sacrament. In this pamphlet,
Langenmantel adopts what can best be described as a take it or leave it
approach towards the Eucharist. He begins by setting up a spirit/mat-
ter dualism that informs his Eucharistic theology. According to such a
system, there can be no involvement of one realm in an operation that
pertains properly to another realm. Therefore, when God, who is a
spirit, brings forgiveness of sins to the human soul, which is spiritual,
he must use a medium that is also spiritual. The application of the his-
torical passion of Christ is effected in the human soul via the spiritual
eating of the body and blood of Christ, that is, by faith in the word of
God, which Langenmantel conceives of as the living voice of God con-
tained in the Scripture and preaching, and which is thus spiritual and
92
In the aftermath of the Peasants War of 1525, the Swabian League declared that
it possessed unlimited authority to pacify and punish rebellious peasants within the
borders of Swabian League member states. Due to the opposition of its members, this
power was suspended in the middle of 1526. However, by early 1527, the fear that
emerging Anabaptist groups would provoke rebellion caused its reinstatement. In
December of that year, 400 mounted troops were commissioned to continue the cam-
paign. In February 1528 the commission was extended for three months. During that
time, these troops were engaged primarily in hunting Anabaptists. The League sol-
diers, claiming to be operating under the laws of war, often executed Anabaptists on
their own authority. Langenmantel suffered this fate (Thomas S. Sea, Schwbischer
Bund und Bauernkrieg: Bestraffung und Pazifikation, in Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg
15241525, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975],
130136).
not material in nature. He completely rejects the value of any material

elements in this process, writing,
Whoever does not believe [that Christ is true God and man and died for
the forgiveness of our sins] is already damned. For without faith in Gods
Word, no one can be saved. But without the so-called Sacrament and
signs, bread and wine, we can certainly be saved. For God is a spirit, and
his words are spirit and life, and the spirit is that which makes alive.
Christ rejects all carnal things when he himself says, The flesh is of no
avail, [Jn. 6:63] by which he means eating externally, carnally, and the
like.93
Indeed, throughout this brief treatise, Langenmantel repeatedly empha-
sizes that there is no real need to attend the Eucharist or receive the
elements of the bread and wine, which he calls the signs. He indeed
declines at every possible turn to provide any incentive to attend a
Eucharistic service at all. All one needs is a strong faith and trust in the
word of God to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ in spirit and
truth. The signs are irrelevant for this process.
To sum up, whoever believes that Jesus Christ, true God and man, was
given over for us, and that his blood was shed for us for the forgiveness
of sins, even if we then are not able to partake of the signs, we eat and
drink nonetheless the body and the blood of Christ in spirit and in truth,
in the remembrance of the suffering and the blood-shedding of Jesus
Christ on the Cross for our sins, in a strong, firm trust and faith in his
word, without any signs and actions of men, in whatever place it hap-
pens. For a man does not live by bread alone, but by each and every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God.94
93
Wers nit glaubt ist schon verdampt / dann on glauben Gottes wort / wirt nyem-
andt selig / aber on das genandt Sacrament und zaychen brot vnd weyn / mgen wir
wol selig werden / dann Gott ist ain gayst / vnd seine wort seind gayst und leben / vnd
der gayst ists der lebendig macht. Christus verwirfft alle flaischliche ding / so er selb
spricht / das flaisch ist kain ntz / verstand / eusserlich leyplich zu essec et. (Khler,
Fiche 1062, Nr. 2678, a2r-a2v). The almost word-for-word similarity between
Langenmantels statement and a passage in Schnewyls contemporaneous Blinden
Fhrer (quoted above) is striking: Wir mgen wol on das nachtmal selig werden /
aber nit on die lieb vnd glauben (e1v). While it cannot be established whether one
borrowed from another or if they both took from a common third source, it does sug-
gest that they were working in a common environment and perhaps in contact with
each other. It also bolsters the argument that Schnewyl was in touch with the circle of
sacramentarian sectarians and that his ideas were representative of that group.
94
Summa Summarum / wellicher glaubt das Jesus Christus warer Gott vnd
mensch / fr vns dargeben / vnd sein blut fr vns vergossen hatt / zu vergebung der
snden / so wir ye die zaichen nit haben mchten / der ysset vnd trinckt nichts
destminder den leyb vnd das blut Christi / im gayst vnd in der warhait / in der
gedechtnu
190 chapter four
There were also other factors beyond his spiritualizing hermeneutic

that contributed to Langenmantels lack of enthusiasm for attending
Eucharistic services. They are the sectarian concerns that we have
already discussed. First, many Evangelical clergy were continuing to
teach that the body of Christ was in the bread and the blood of Christ
in the wine.95 This doctrine allowed the priests to control Christ, lock-
ing him up in a ciborium, or charging money for access to him.96
Obviously, attending such a religious service would be out of the ques-
tion. Secondly, Langenmantel wants to ensure the moral caliber of the
preachers who would be celebrating the Eucharist. Here, the concern
for the purity of the Christian congregation, fundamental for the self-
understanding of the sectarians and later the Anabaptists, comes to
thefore.
As demonstrated above, we should and must have such learned pious
men who will hold for us the remembrance of the Lord, when we desire
it from our hearts when we come together with Christian brethren and
not with anti-christians. We must have such men to distribute to us the
signs, bread and wine, and to share with us other acts of Christian broth-
erly love, words, and works. They should be compensated with an appro-
priate salary, for not everyone is called to such activity.97
The traditional understanding of the earthly church held that it was
made up of wheat and tares, that is, true Christians and false ones. For
Langenmantel, however (and we shall see this developed more fully
later on), only a congregation of true devout Christians is acceptable. If
this were not to be the case, it would be better simply to stay away.
Langenmantel has not yet hardened in his sectarian trajectory. He
still holds out hope for the so-called magisterial reformation, for a state
church run by government-appointed pastors, von ainer gemainen
des leydens vnd blut vergiessen Jhesu Christi / am Cretz vergossen fr vnsere snd /
in ainem starcken vesten vertrawen vnnd glauben seinem wort / on alle zaychen / vnd
zuthun der menschen es geschech an welchem ort es wll / dann der mensch lebt nit
allain vom brot / sonder von ainem yeden wort / das da geet au dem mund gots
(Khler, Fiche 1062, Nr. 2678, a2v).
95
Khler, Fiche 1062, Nr. 2678, a3r.
96
Ibid.
97
Sollich geleert frumm mnner / wie vor anzaygt / sollen vnd mssen wir ha-
ben / die vns / so wir von hertzen begyrig werden / des herren widergedechtnu zu-
halten / so wir zusamen kommen / mit Christlichen brudern / vnd nit mit widerchris-
ten / die vns die zaichen / Brot und weyn raychen / vnd andre Christliche bruderliche
lieb / wort vnnd werck vns mitzutaylen / vmb ain zimliche belonung / dann nit ainem
yeden befohlen ist / sollichs zu handlen (Khler, Fiche 1062, Nr. 2678, a3v).
Oberkeit erwlt.98 He is not wed to the idea, however. If these churches

do not meet the necessary criteria for a true Christian congregation, he
is willing to find an alternative solution. And find an alternative solu-
tion he does.
Over the rest of 1526 Langenmantel published two more treatises:
Ein treue Ermanung an alle Christen / das sy sich vor falscher leer htten
and Ein kurtzer begryff Von den Alten vnnd Newen Papisten. In them,
he presses his attack against those preachers who maintain a Real
Presence in the Eucharist and begins to articulate a uniquely sectarian
understanding of the Eucharist based on a symbolic interpretation of
the ceremony. Following the lead of Karlstadt, he lumps together as
papists everyone who maintains that Christ is extraordinarily pre-
sent in the elements of the Eucharist. He designates the Catholics old
papists and the Lutherans new papists. While the new papists have
abolished the mass, vigils, prayers to saints, purgatory, monastic life,
and the use of sacred objects, they continue in the tradition of their
old-papist predecessors of adhering to a doctrine of the Real Presence
in order to regulate the laitys access to Christ and become rich in the
process. By this time, such a critique against the old papists is old news.
Therefore, Langenmantel spends his time demonstrating the applica-
bility of this charge to his new-papist opponents.99
He focuses on the practice common among both Lutherans and
Catholics of bringing the host to the sick. First, according to
Langenmantel, the Lutheran pastor withholds the host from the sick
person until he or she professes doctrinal conformity to the Lutheran
position on the Eucharist, agreeing that Christ is essentially present in
the bread and wine, the bread remaining truly bread and the wine truly
wine.100 Once the pastor has extorted a confession of doctrinal con-
formity, he gives the sick person the host, which Langenmantel mock-
ingly refers to as a Herrgot, that is, a Lord God. After performing this
act of deception, the Lutheran pastor sees what he can collect for his
services. True enough, the old papists charge for a Herrgot as well, but
the Lutherans have jacked up the prices considerably. Under the old
papists, one could get a Herrgot for six pfennings, and the oil for nine,
98
Khler, Fiche 1062, Nr. 2678, a3v.
99
Again, the similarity between Langenmantels and Schnewyls arguments is
striking.
100
Ein kurtzer Begriff von den alten und neuen Papisten, in Laube, Flugschriften
(15261535), 132.
192 chapter four
quite a bargain compared to the Lutheran fees.101 Langenmantel warns

his readers to guard their purses well against the Lutherans. If you are
rich, they will charge you a guilder or two. If you are poor, be expected
to pay 2 or 3 batzen (small silver coins worth 14 pfennigs apiece), and
rather than leave empty handed he will even take a half pound of meat
from your wife.102
In these two treatises, Langenmantel begins to develop his own sec-
tarian understanding of the Eucharist. What is most remarkable about
his approach is the limited extent to which he draws on the Gospel
accounts of Christs supper as a model for current celebration of the
Eucharist. Up to this point, it had been an undisputed fact among
Catholics and Protestants alike that the Last Supper provided the
definitive paradigm for church practice of the Eucharist. Langenmantel
breaks with this tradition, casting his net far and wide in search of bib-
lical models for his Eucharistic services. Langenmantel perhaps per-
ceived the gospel account of the Last Supper as heavily laden with
clerical and hierarchical glosses, with Jesus standing for the priest,
elevated above his disciples, who stood for the congregation. Further,
it contained those problematic words, This is my bodythis is my
blood. For these reasons, it is not surprising that Langenmantel
decided he needed to break some fresh ground. Not that Langenmantel
would have considered the Last Supper unrecoverable for his position.
He did, in fact, use it to articulate his vision of a truly Christian
Eucharistic service. He was, however, not going to allow himself to be
limited to it, and to the traditional discourse surrounding it.
A critical model for Langenmantel is the account of the activities of
the early church presented in the second chapter of Acts. Most impor-
tant for Langenmantels purposes is the reference to the fact that the
early disciples broke bread from house to house (hin und wider inn
hewsern), and partook of the food with glad and generous hearts.103
Langenmantel interprets this breaking of the bread to be the Eucharistic
service of the early church. He is able to draw three sectarian points
from this Eucharistic model. First, the celebrations took place in
houses, a fact that sanctioned a continuation of such an approach. We
know that at this time such private Eucharistic services were taking
place. Further, no mention is made of blessing the bread or wine or of
101
Langenmantel, Papisten, in Laube, Flugschriften (15261535), 133.
102
103
anyone regarding it as the body and blood of Christ. The people simply
ate together with joy.104 The remark that no blessing was spoken over
the elements may merely indicate rejection of the act of consecration
and the implied mediating role of the officiant. It may, however, refer
more generally to a blessing of the food. If this is what Langenmantel
meant, then he is clearly arguing for a radically communal meal where
there was to be no role for an officiant, even in a limited sense. Finally,
in a manuscript entitled Ein ander preff vom nachtmal oder vom sac-
rament Langenmantel notes that the Apostles celebrated the Eucharist
in closed circles, only with fellow believers. He also mentions that they
were following the same procedure Jesus laid out in his Last Supper.
Christ held it with his disciples in a dining room, and not in front of
everyone and not with the outsiders. The apostles went to and fro in the
houses, and only held it with their brothers and sisters who lived accord-
ing to the commandment of Christ, who had attained the same faith with
them, and who were baptized into the death of Christ.105
Therefore, to follow the Apostles model for the Eucharistic meal was
to meet privately in small, closed groups composed only of true believ-
ers, people united in doctrine and committed to living according to the
commands of Christ. The sectarian Eucharistic meal was a way of
expressing mutual love and unity, enforcing moral norms within the
community, and maintaining boundaries between themselves and the
outside. By maintaining a symbolic understanding of the meal, they
could focus on Christs holy body gathered together instead of Christs
holy body present in the elements. The attention in the meal was paid
to the horizontal relational axis involving community members, rather
than to the vertical relational axis involving individuals and the
uniquely present Christ. They rejected clericalism and hierarchy in
favor of a communal meal shared with joy.
104
Ibid.
105
Christus hat es mit seinen jungern gehalten im muesshau, vnd nit vor jeder-
man und bey den auswendigen, die abpostlen [gingen] hin und wider in den heusern,
und hielten es auch nur mit iren bredern und schwestern, die da lebten nach dem
befelch Christy, die mit inen gleichen glauben berkommen hetten vnd getaufft waren
in den todt Christy (Ein ander preff vom nachtmal oder vom sacrament, in Linda
Mller, ed., Glaubenszeugnisse oberdeutscher Taufgesinnter, Quellen und Forschung
zur Reformationsgeschichte, 20, 1 [Leipzig: Heinsius Nachfolger, 1938; reprint, New
York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1971], 132133 [page citations are to the reprint
edition]).
194 chapter four
The reference to being baptized in the death of Christ is likely a ref-

erence to believers baptism. If this is the case, it indicates that by the
time this last quotation was written, Langenmantel had made the tran-
sition to Anabaptism, thus making believers baptism another require-
ment for membership in the congregation.
Langenmantel goes even further afield, however, in searching out
models for celebrating the Eucharist that really have nothing to do
with the Last Supper of Jesus. He concludes any act of nourishing
someone that displays the sort of love, acceptance, and forgiveness
manifested by Jesus, is truly to celebrate the Lords Supper. To care for
the naked, poor, hungry, thirsty, sick, and imprisoned, as commanded
by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46, is to celebrate the Lords Supper. When
one has an evening meal (Abendmahl) and one invites the poor, crip-
pled, and lame, as Jesus commanded in Luke 14:12-14, that is to
celebrate the Lords Supper. When one feeds and gives drink to ones
enemy, as Paul commands in Romans 12:20-21, or forgives ones
brother as Jesus commands in Luke 17:3-4, then one has celebrated the
Lords Supper.
Behind this tropological interpretation of the Eucharist is the incli-
nation on the part of Langenmantel to conclude that ceremonies tend
to be a waste of time. Even worse, people tend to substitute participat-
ing in religious ceremonies for the difficult task of following the com-
mands of Christ. God would rather have one follow his commands
regarding how to treat other people than attend a religious ceremony.
He writes,
We want nothing to do with that kind of Lords Supper. But a German or
a Latin Mass, we would be happy to see or hear, for that proceeds in a
lively fashion, and it does not cause any discomfort. Thus, one does not
get ones hands dirty. It is just like going to a carnival play.106
Langenmantels point is not to discourage his brethren from celebrat-
ing an actual Eucharistic meal. His interest is rather to exhort them
towards greater moral seriousness and to point out that those attend-
ing the churches of Augsburg may wax eloquent about the Eucharist,
106
Wir wllen dero nachtmahls kains / Aber teutschen oder walsch Me / die wll
wir gern sehen / oder hren / denn das geet hpsch zu / thut inen nit wee / so macht
man kain hand romig / Ist gleich als wenn man ain Fastnacht spil hat (Ein treue
Ermahnung an alle Christen, da sie sich vor falscher Lehr hten, Khler, Fiche 611, Nr.
1573, b1r).
but they have no desire to lead real Christian lives. They are defined
out of the true body of Christ.
By the time Langenmantel published Ain kurtzer Anzeig, wie Martin
Luther hat etliche Schriften lassen ausgehn vom Sakrament in early
1527, he had become much more grim. He was commanding his dear
ones in the Lord to celebrate the Lords Supper with true Christians,
not only in the Temple, but also here and there in the houses, as the
Apostles had done.107 There will, however, be no more feeding your
enemies. Langenmantel thunders,
Therefore, all those who believe that the body of Christ the Lord is essen-
tially in the bread or the host, and the wine is the blood of Christ essen-
tially in the cup, they are called and truly are all Antichrists, and they
falsify Christs Testament. Do not take such people into your house, and
do not greet them. For whoever greets them has communion with their
wicked deeds.108
Langenmantels sense of alienation from his society and his program to
literally demonize everyone outside his sectarian group had reached a
fever pitch. He had before characterized deceptive preachers as
Antichrists, and had criticized the Augsburg churchgoers for their lack
of Christian living. However, this level of vitriol directed against the
simple church attenders is entirely new. They have gone from good,
simple, honorable people deceived by the greedy pastors in Von den
Allten vnnd Newen Papisten109 to Antichrists only a few months later.
Langenmantel had earlier advocated a separation between believers
and non-believers in the spiritual realm. However, he had quite recently
advocated believers engagement in society, suggesting that believers
give food and drink to their enemies. Now he prohibits them from
even greeting their Lutheran or Catholic neighbors. The sectarian tra-
jectory had reached its terminal point. The circle of believers was
nowto be completely closed both in the religious and civic spheres.
107
Langenmantel, Kurtzer Anzeig, Khler, Fiche 962, Nr. 2043, a2r-a2v
108
Derhalben / alle die da glauben / das der leyb Christi des Herren / wesenlich im
brot / oder Hostie sey / vnd der weyn das blut Christi / wesenlich im kelch / dise hays-
sen vnd seind warlich alle wider Christen / vnd felschen Christus Testament / Solliche
nempt nit zu haw / vnnd grsset sy nitt / dann wer sy grsset / der hat gemainschaft
mit iren bsen wercken (Langenmantel, Kurtzer Anzeig, a3v).
109
Die gutten einfltigen erben lewt, seind begirig und im hertzen fro, sagen Got
dem herren gro eer, lob und danck, das er sy mit so gelerten mnnern so vtterlich
versehen hab, und wissen nit, das sy so jmmerlich verfrt und betrogen seind
(Langenmantel, Ein kurzer Begriff, 132).
196 chapter four
The danger of pollution was so overwhelming that a simple greeting

expressed to a non-believer made the believer a party to all his evil
works.
Why this sudden harshness? It must first of all be recognized that
Langenmantel had been circling the wagons and disparaging people
of other convictions since his first treatise was published. However,
some event or series of events must have pushed him toward a more
extreme position. Langenmantel would have written this treatise
sometime before March 11, 1527, the date on which he was impris-
oned by the city council, quite possibly for his sacramentarian activi-
ties. He was released on the thirteenth after swearing an oath to keep
the peace. The publication of the provocative Ein Kurzer Anzeig (which
had his name prominently displayed on the title page) would not have
been consistent with this oath. Indeed, the publication of this pam-
phlet may have landed him in prison in the first place. Haug Marschalck
had suffered a similar fate for publishing a sacramentarian pamphlet
the previous year. From Langenmantels later interrogation at the hand
of the Swabian League, we learn that Jakob Dachser had helped
Langenmantel in editing and correcting the book and had approved of
its contents.110 Dachser, originally a priest from Vienna, had been
expelled from Ingolstadt in 1523 due to his involvement in religious
disputes. He was active as a private instructor in Augsburg since some-
time in the mid-1520s. Dachser shortly joined his fellow sacramentar-
ian Langenmantel in the transition to Anabaptism. Later that year
Dachser would put his literary skills to use again, publishing the
defense of the Augsburg Anabaptist community, Ein gttlich und
grndlich Offenbarung von den warhaftigen Widertufer.111
In the February-March time frame Hans Hut made a second visit to
Augsburg. During his brief stay there, Hut baptized a large number of
people. Seeba has established at least twenty by name, and there were
certainly more whose names escaped the record books. Among those
that we know about were Eitelhans Langenmantel, Georg Regel and his
wife (who were mentioned above as patrons of Htzer), and the two
men who would spearhead the growing Anabaptist movement over
the next few months, the former Franciscan monk Sigmund Salminger
and the former priest Jakob Dachser. A number of the baptisms took
110
Roth, Lebensgeschichte Langenmantels, 19.
111
Khler, Fiche 1465, Nr. 3861. The true Widertufer are those who baptize against
(wider) the commandment of Christ.
place in Langenmantels house, where the Strasbourg Anabaptists

Jakob Gro and his wife, Veronika, had already taken up residence a
few weeks before Huts visit.112
While it is impossible to establish beyond question the chronologi-
cal order in which Langenmantels contact with Anabaptists, his publi-
cation of Ein Kurzer Anzeig, and his baptism took place, most likely
these events occurred in that order. Sacramentarians in Augsburg had
always articulated their critique of society and their separation from it
in terms of their symbolic interpretation of the Lords Supper. By early
1527 in Augsburg, many sectarians were viewing Anabaptism as an
increasingly viable way to express their alienation from societys reli-
gious and political institutions. Further, that sense of alienation among
sectarians in Augsburg seems only to have been growing. Ein Kurzer
Anzeig appears to be the last attempt of the sectarian movement to
express its core values through its position on the Eucharist. In the
future that position would be taken over by a new understanding of
that other Evangelical sacrament, baptism. Below, we shall discuss
why, especially in Augsburg, this transition took place.
Langenmantel had come to view society as not only indifferent to
his plea to live a true Christian life, but positively intent on wiping out
the true Christian church altogether. He remarks to the preachers
elected by the magistrate that they should go to these antichrists (that
is, those who believe that Christ is bodily present in the elements of the
Eucharist) and attempt to persuade them to repent of their error. Then,
he reminds the preachers of the high ethical and religious standards set
out for them in the third chapter of 1 Timothy. Finally, he addresses the
beloved in the Lord, asking them where are we to find such people?
For when the very pastors who are supposed to possess these qualities
actually find pious, learned men, they do not rest until they have driven
them from one city to another.113 He may have been thinking of Hans
Denck, who was forced to leave Augsburg under pressure from Rhegius
in October 1526, or perhaps of Ludwig Htzer, the conditions of whose
departure have already been recounted. Whomever he was thinking of,
his sense that society was out to get him and destroy his congregation
of the faithful (a sense which was, after all, not too far off the mark)
caused him to experience a sense of total alienation from his fellow
citizens.
112
Seeba, Erbe, 247248.
113
Langenmantel, Kurtzer Anzeig, 197.
198 chapter four
Perhaps even more remarkable was Langenmantels decision to cat-

egorize people as one of us or one of them based on their belief about
the Lords Supper. To a certain extent, this is logical. One of the found-
ing pillars of the sectarian movement in Augsburg was the opposition
to the doctrine of the Real Presence. That quest for direct access to God
unmediated by a clerical hierarchy and the desire for membership in a
society where the commandments of Christ are followed in their per-
sonal and economic implications, are nicely encapsulated in the adher-
ence to a symbolic understanding of Christs presence in the Eucharist.
Langenmantel is still hammering away at this point in Ein kurzer
Anzaig. Responding to Luther, he asserts, The forgiveness of sins,
comes alone in the faith in the suffering and blood shedding of Jesus
Christ on the cross for our sins and not in your power to give to one
ormore the body and blood of Christ.114 Forgiveness comes directly
from God through faith. It is not in the clergys power to distribute
forgiveness in the form of Christs body and blood as they see fit.
Langenmantel glosses over one important fact, however, in the deci-
sion to use the Eucharist as the defining position of his sect. There were
literally thousands of people living in Augsburg at this time who
rejected the Real Presence but did not belong to his congregation.
Many of them would certainly not have met his high ethical standards,
which were also a prerequisite for membership. These people were,
of course, Michael Kellers congregation at the Franciscan church.
Keller had effectively taken the issue of the Real Presence with all its
attendant concerns away from the sectarians by preaching it in an
institutional church setting. Clearly, then, this doctrine did not serve
as an ideal standard for determining who was in and who was out
of the sect. Michael Keller would soon enough dedicate himself to
the task of helping the city council root out the Anabaptists. He may
have been present during some of Langenmantels interrogation in
September 1527.
After Langenmantel was arrested by the Swabian League,
found among his papers were some notes of a sermon von meister
Michel [Keller] zu Augspurg, preached in support of infant baptism.
This sermon seems to be more properly a catechism, or perhaps a
114
Die vergebung der snden / steet allain im glauben / des leydens vnd blutver-
giessens Jesu Christi / am Crez fr vnnser snden / vnd nit in deiner macht / ainem
oder mer Christus leyb vnd blut zuschencken (Langenmantel, Kurtzer anzayg, b1v-
b2r, 199).
post-baptismal section of the baptismal liturgy. In it, the minister asks

baptized children questions about their baptism, to which the spon-
sors give appropriate answers. At the end of this citation the mocking
remark is penned, probably by Langenmantel himself, There are not
in every city children still nursing at their mothers breast who can
speak as they do in Augsburg. O blindness etc.115 The assumption here
is that Keller was engaging infants in a discussion of their faith, prob-
ably following their baptism, through their godparents, who answered
for them. These remarks conclude with a challenge to the city preach-
ers, now apparently represented by Keller: Furthermore, I ask you
bible scholars (schriftgelerten) who baptize young children, whether
Christ the Lord commanded his apostles, John, or you to baptize young
children etc. (Mark 16, Matthew 28). And when one asks you, you
bible scholars say that Christ has not forbidden it.116 For Langenmantel,
as for other sectarians, the term Schriftgelerten was the ultimate term
of disdain, denoting someone full of haughty self-confidence in his dry
academic knowledge but without any real understanding of Christian
truth. Langenmantel puts Keller in this category, identifying him
clearly with the other city preachers who asserted a Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist. Kellers orthodox position (from the perspec-
tive of the sacramentarians) on the Eucharist no longer saved him
from condemnation by Langenmantel.
Langenmantels call to strictly separate Keller from the true church
does not seem to have been heeded everywhere, however, not even
within his own household. Langenmantels servants Herman Anwald
and Margaretha, who were baptized and married in 1527, were accom-
panying him when the Swabian League overtook them on April 24,
1528. Under interrogation, they both identified Michael Keller as hav-
ing preached that one should be rebaptized. Anwald, during his first
session and not under torture, stated that Keller had publicly preached
that one should be rebaptized. However, under further questioning
he admitted that he had not himself heard Keller supporting adult
baptism. He had received the information from someone else.117
Margaretha also states that the preaching of Keller moved her to be
115
Es seind nit in allen stetten kinder, die noch irer mutter brust saugen, reden
kinden, wie zu Augspurg. O blindthait etc. (Roth, Lebensgeschichte Langenmantels, 41).
116
Ibid.
117
Roth, Lebensgeschichte Langenmantels, 1011.
200 chapter four
baptized. His statement denying the effectiveness of holy oil and the
holy water in the baptismal font had convinced her to take this step.
It is important to note that neither confession crediting Keller with
motivating them to be rebaptized is based on a clear statement on bap-
tism from Keller. Rather, their confidence in Kellers support for their
position seems to be based on mistaken assumptions about what
Kellers position would be on the matter. Of course, the agendas of the
sectarians who were being rebaptized and that of Keller to a large ex-
tent overlapped. It would not have been unreasonable for Langen-
mantels rebaptized servants to have presumed that Keller would fol-
low them in this step also.
The boundaries between Kellers congregation and the sectarian
movement remained fluid. Their overlapping but not identical set of
concerns seems to have led to a situation in which some people did not
clearly distinguish between the two alternatives. One might also con-
sider Jrg Regel in this context. Originally a patron of Htzer, he also
corresponded with Zwingli. On May 15, 1527, he wrote to Zwingli. He
had been reading Luthers Da diese Wort Christi Das ist mein leib
noch fest stehen wider die Schwrmgeister. He remarks, May God allow
him to recognize his error and blasphemy. Included with the letter
was a copy of Kellers pamphlet Etlich Sermones, probably the 1526 edi-
tion.118 Regel was obviously keeping Zwingli abreast of the progress on
the Eucharistic dispute in Augsburg. Remarkably though, Regel had
been baptized by Hans Hut only a few months before he wrote the let-
ter. Apparently even after his baptism he was still in friendly contact
with that ur-persecutor of the Anabaptist faithful, Zwingli, keeping
him informed of the writings of Keller. Zwingli was still an important
colleague in the common effort to counter the blasphemous Lutheran
teaching on the Lords Supper. A proper sectarian mentality was being
blocked by a sense of belonging to a larger movement to establish a
symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. Soon enough, people like
Regel and Langenmantels servants would be forced by both camps to
choose sides.
The fact that many people were not making such clear distinctions
would have been a matter of concern to a person like Langenmantel.
He was attempting to break his sect clearly off from institutional church
and society. However, the similarity between the concerns of the
118
ZW 9, Nr. 619, 134.
sectarians and those of Kellers congregation was hindering this pro-

cess. How could one make a clear, undeniable distinction between the
members of the pure sect and the thousands of other Augsburg resi-
dents who held many similar positions?
The old standard position on the Eucharist had worked for a while
to mark the border between the world with its clerical, institutional
church, and the holy brotherhood of true Christians. In early 1527, it
was still functioning in a pinch, but another boundary designating
doctrine or practice was needed. Large numbers of baptisms were
being performed in Augsburg beginning in February 1527, with
Sigmund Salminger and Hans Hut in the vanguard. Believers baptism
was a doctrine that fit the needs of the time. In what more suitable way
could one express ones rejection of the society and religion of ones
past as well as ones new devotion to the holy community of the
Anabaptist sect? A symbolic understanding of the Eucharist still helped
articulate some fundamental attitudes of the sectarians, but it would
no longer serve as the defining doctrine that would separate them
from the institutional church. That role was to be taken over by believ-
ers baptism.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE COMMUNAL DIMENSION OF THE EUCHARISTIC

CONFLICT IN AUGSBURG
Now we turn to a methodological analysis of the Augsburg Eucharistic

disputes, paying special attention to the role that communalism and
the debate over communal values played in the conflict. To that end,
this chapter seeks to benefit from approaches derived from anthropol-
ogy and sociology and applied by cultural and social historians, respec-
tively. To properly interpret the Eucharistic changes proposed by Keller
and the Anabaptists in Augsburg during the 1520s it is necessary to
understand the significance of ritual changes in the celebration of the
Eucharist, as well as how contemporary interpretations of the Lords
Supper provide insight into contemporaneous social developments.
Methods of intellectual, cultural, and social history will be necessary to
comprehend the issues behind the passionate articulations of varying
Eucharistic theologies in Augsburg.
The Theological Debate over the Canon
The religious issues driving the theological debate between Zwinglians

and Lutherans over the nature of Christs presence in the Eucharist
come into much clearer focus when we place the debate in the larger
context of the sixteenth-century dispute over the sacrifice of the mass.
Luthers rejection of the canon of the mass emerged in 1520 as a central
part of his reformation agenda. The canon refers to that part of the
mass in which the priest consecrates the elements of bread and wine,
transforming them into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.1 The con-
secrated elements are offered to God as a sacrifice, and then consumed
by the priest, and perhaps also by the congregants (although beginning
1
The canon had been established as a recognizable part of the mass since at least
the end of the fourth century. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite:
Its Origins and Development, vol. 1, trans. Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R (Westminster,
MA: Christian Classics Inc., [1949] 1986), 5153.
204 chapter five
in the twelfth century, the laity would have received only the conse-
crated bread).
Luther first took aim at the canon in the summer of 1520 when he
published A Treatise on the New Testament, that is, the Holy Mass. His
definitive assault on the institution would appear later that October in
his revolutionary manifesto The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.2
In it, Luther condemned the mass for presuming to sacrifice Christ
upon the altar. By calling it a sacrifice, the church turns the mass into a
good work offered to God, the merit of which is distributed to those
participating in it. According to Luther, Christ instituted the mass (as
he still calls it) not as a sacrifice, but as a testament. In his testament,
Christ promises his unearned mercythe forgiveness of sinsto
those who draw near in faith, and he seals it with the sign of his body
and blood.
Zwingli published his own refutation of the canon of the mass, De
canone missae epichiresis, at the end of August 1523.3 As part of a grow-
ing push for liturgical reform in Zurich, the work criticizes the canon
line by line and concludes with an alternative Eucharistic liturgy of
Zwinglis own devising. Zwingli argues that since Christ died once as a
sacrifice for sins, he cannot be offered daily on the altar during the
mass. As is characteristic for Zwingli, whose theology revolves around
asserting the absolute separation of creature and creator, he takes par-
ticular offense at the idea that, in the mass, humans are controlling
Christ and functioning as part of the process of salvation. He charges
that it is impossible for a mortal priest to offer Christ, who is immor-
tal.4 Further, it is blasphemous to maintain that the priest, a mere crea-
ture, offers a pure victim (hostia pura) in the mass. Only the divine
Christ could make such an offering.5
By the time that Michael Keller published his Etlich Sermones von
dem Nachtmahl Christi in May 1525, the rejection of the canon had
become such a common part of the reformation message that Keller
saw no need to address the matter himself. He writes that every corner
was already filled with books that would demonstrate clearly enough
2
WA 6: 497573 (LW 36: 11126). For a brief discussion of these two works, see
Brecht, Reformation, 380385.
3
ZW 2: 552608. The editors helpfully provide in a note a transcription of the mass
canon from an edition of the Missale Constantiense printed in Augsburg in 1504,
561563.
4
ZW 2: 584.
5
ZW 2: 592.
the eucharistic conflict in augsburg 205
to any stiff-necked person that the mass was not a sacrifice.6 As we

have already mentioned in a prior chapter, Kellers principal objection
to the sacrifice of the mass was that it destroyed the communal bond of
Christian love. It divided the community by elevating the priest over
the rest of the congregation, and it encouraged people to seek their
own portion of the benefits flowing from the mass to the detriment of
the communal whole.
Anthropological Perspectives on Sacrifice
Insights from the discipline of anthropology will help clarify the sig-
nificance of Kellers decision to break the communion meal off from
the sacrifice in order to secure a communal, non-divisive ceremony. It
is important, however, to pay attention to scholars who have issued
warnings regarding the consequences of an insufficiently considered
application of anthropological methods to the discipline of history.
Anthony Pagden maintains that most works of historical anthropology
tend to use categories and comparative examples from distant cultures
to make their subjectspeople who are considered to be our ances-
torsappear exotic, strangely unfamiliar, or entirely other. While this
tends to make the past appear savage and exciting, it achieves little in
describing the past of our society as the past of our society and not the
present of someone elses. He questions the assumption that compar-
ing, for example, African segmentary societies with medieval Normans
leads to self-evident insights. One must be careful about unexamined
assumptions regarding the interrelatedness of cultures along a time
and space continuum.7
Philippe Buc has counseled historians to drop the term ritual
entirely. He argues that its origin in anthropological studies of cultures
with an entirely different attitude towards solemnities (as he prefers to
call them) results in a whole series of misconceptions when the term is
imported into the study of medieval and early modern European cul-
ture. Particularly relevant is his understanding of Europe in this period
6
Keller, Etlich Sermones, 1525, c4v.
7
Anthony Pagden, History and Anthropology, and a History of Anthropology:
Considerations on a Methodological Practice, in Imagining Culture: Essays in Early
Modern History and Literature, ed. Jonathan Hart, Comparative Literature and Cultural
Studies (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1996), 3840.
206 chapter five
as a culture of interpretation. Rituals were not unconscious manifesta-

tions of society or its norms. Nor did they seek to restore homeostasis
to the social organism, as functionalists would have people believe.
Rather, interested parties construed events ritually (or liturgically) or
not, according to their political or ideological program. Unlike in tra-
ditional societies, rituals were not uncontested events, which were pre-
sumed to be efficacious. Their meaning was more likely to be debated
and manipulated subsequently in texts rather than directly perceived
by its participants and viewers. The interpretation of rituals, and even
the decision regarding whether an event would be characterized ritu-
ally, were matters of interpretation in European society.8
It is well to take these criticisms seriously. It will not be my intention
to make unsustainable comparisons between medieval European cul-
ture and that of nomadic societies of the Sudan or traditional societies
of the Philippine highlands. Nor do I mean to suggest that the factors
resulting in the structures and practices of these traditional societies
are necessarily the same factors that produce apparently similar struc-
tures and practices in medieval and early modern European society.
Neither do I intend to use these comparisons to spice up our tour of
the European past; that past is exotic enough even without the decora-
tions of anthropological terminology.
As I explore the cross-cultural significance and function of sacrifice,
I shall attempt to avoid these pitfalls by not choosing cultures at ran-
dom or according to the principle of utility to compare with medieval
and early modern Europe. Rather, I shall seek to apply only those
anthropological insights that obtain in the preponderance of societies
investigated across time and geography. Indeed, I will argue that
anthropological studies of ritual sacrifice allow us to deduce some
8
Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social
Scientific Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), see esp. pp. 15, 5052,
240245, 250254. Bucs book has been severely criticized in a review article by
Geoffrey Koziol, The Dangers of Polemic: Is Ritual Still an Interesting Topic of
Historical Study? Early Medieval Europe, 2 (4) 2002: 367388. Koziol argues that the
sort of nave appropriation of ethnography described by Buc does not occur among
contemporary English-speaking medievalists. Such historians are acutely aware that
participants contend for meaning in rituals and that they employ rituals to actively
construct meaning and social roles. While much of Koziols critique of the ways Buc
has broadly characterized his colleagues has merit, we shall explore below how some
components of an implicit functionalism still need to be confronted in order to gain a
clearer picture of the social referent in the symbolic Eucharistic theology of Augsburgs
sacramentarians.
basic characteristics and purposes of the act. Naturally, I will also be

sensitive to the historical particularities of individual cultures that
might significantly limit the relevance to their circumstances of broadly
based conclusions.
The literature on the nature and function of sacrifice is extensive.
However, as John Bossy points out in The Mass as a Social Institution
12001700, anthropologists have not come to a consensus on a
general definition of the ceremony.9 Bossy begins his article with the
working hypothesis that the sacrificial component of the mass repre-
sented the community divided, while the sacramental portion of the
mass (the communion, or the consumption of the elements) repre-
sented the communal whole.10 The canon of the mass divided the
Christian community along the dual axes of friend/enemy and living/
dead according to which the benefits (and occasionally injuries) were
distributed. The communion service, and increasingly the Pax, or kiss
of peace, became the expression of unity and reconciliation.
Midway through his article, Bossy takes up several social-scientific
definitions of sacrifice, the most important of which comes from
Godfrey Lienhardt. Bossy summarizes Lienhardts view of sacrifice as
a ceremony that binds people together, especially at the actual moment
when the victim is sacrificed, but at the stage when it begins to move
towards the consumption of the victim it reactivates the sense of divi-
sion.11 However, the fact that Lienhardts schematization of the ritual
9
Bossy, Mass, 50.
10
Bossy, Mass, 3435.
11
Bossy, Mass, 50. Lienhardts book Divinity and Experience: Religion and the
Dinka (hereafter Linehardt, Dinka) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) considers the re-
ligious life and rituals of the cattle-herding Dinka of the Sudan. Lienhard describes a
sacrifice that seeks to bring healing to a man dying apparently of pulmonary tubercu-
losis. Earlier, the man had quarreled with his uncle, who was now concerned that he
was responsible for the sickness, sickness being a manifestation of social disharmony.
The uncle brings an ox to a ceremonial stake, where the ox is informed that its life is to
be given to the Power in exchange for the life of the man. After a series of invocations
said over the ox, a crowd of young men rush the ox and beat it to death (222230). In
a similar ceremony, as the ritual commences, the people mill around the ox in a disor-
derly way. As the invocations continue, people are drawn into the event and begin to
take part in the rhythmical speech of the rite. Finally, at the greatest moment of collec-
tive concentration, they thrown down the beast and kill it. At this moment the Dinka
are acting as members of a single undifferentiated body. After this climactic moment,
the people begin to jostle and quarrel with each other as the meat is divided up, and
disputes emerge over shares of the meat. Personal and kinship divisions appear with
their typical disagreements regarding rights and privileges. Lienhardt writes, Sacrifice
thus effects a re-creation of the basis of local corporate life in the full sense of those
208 chapter five
process directly contradicts his own causes Bossy to explore how the
medieval sacrificial tradition came to associate division with sacrifice
and consumption (sacrament) with unity. He argues that the service of
the early church followed the Lienhardt model. The sacrifice was a
communal, public cult, indicating unity, while the consecrated ele-
ments were taken home and consumed in individual homes, indicat-
ing division. However, during the Carolingian period, the sacrifice was
privatized, signifying division, while communion was incorporated
into the public mass, making it a symbol of unity. The phrase Memento,
domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N et omnium circumstan-
tium came to designate absent friends of the sacrificer or the sacrifi-
cers benefactor, to whom the fruits of the mass were intended.12 Bossy
admits, however, that even the Pax ceremony, which is found in the
communion section of the ceremony and was thus supposed to express
communal wholeness and harmony, itself provoked quarreling and
discord, as people bickered over the order for kissing the pax board.13
The remarks of Lienhardt and Bossy serve well as the departure
point for a further exploration of the role of division and unity, of com-
munity and self-interest, and of conflict and peace in sacrificial rituals
in general, and in the medieval mass in particular. Rather than divide
the ritual process into sacrifice and sacrament (communion), a proper
medieval distinction, I believe that it would be helpful to speak more
generally of sacrifice and its aftermath. In reality, the application of the
divine power made available in the sacrifice was not limited to the
communion proper. Rather, it was appropriated in many ways through
the approved and unapproved manipulation of the consecrated host.
Further, people accessed the power of the mass indirectly by having
objects from bread to herbs to candles blessed during the sacred time
created by the ceremony.
Regarding the sacrifice proper, there has been much discussion in
anthropological circles about whether it is possible to achieve a unitary
words. The whole victim corresponds to the unitary solidarity of human beings in
their common relationship to the divine, while the division of the flesh corresponds to
the social differentiation of the persons and groups taking part (234). We can con-
clude from Lienhardts description that the potential social violence unleashed by the
family quarrel was transferred to the victim, thus re-creating an idealized communal
whole in the sacred space of the ritual. Once the transition is made back to the mun-
dane world, social divisions re-emerge.
12
Bossy, Mass, 5152.
13
Bossy, Mass, 56. The pax board, for reasons of propriety, took the place of the
fellow congregant as the proper object of the mandated kiss of peace.
definition of sacrifice. This question generally has been officially

answered in the negative.14 Nevertheless, the same authors generally
accept the proposition that there are certain cross-cultural characteris-
tics common to sacrifice. It is largely accepted that sacrifice involves
the destruction of an object as an offering to the deity, that this object
functions in a mediating role between the sacred and the profane, and
that it stands in as a substitute for the sacrificer, or the one on whose
behalf the sacrifice is performed, who is seen as either causing or
receiving the effects of social disruption.15
Objections to a generalized substitutionary interpretation of sacri-
fice have been raised over the past few decades, especially by scholars
who have been preoccupied with the concern that a lingering Christian
mentality may have inspired other scholars to interpret non-Western
cultures in traditional Christian terms. Marcel Detienne has made the
argument that the grand project initiated by W. Robertson Smith,
Henri Hubert, and Marcel Mauss to develop a unitary understanding
of sacrifice based on ideas of substitution and mediation falls apart on
the example of Greece.16 According to Detienne, Greek sacrifice is ulti-
mately a culinary act, which functions to distinguish men from beasts
14
Maurice Bloch maintains in Prey into hunter: The politics of religious experience
(hereafter Bloch, Prey) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) that sacrifice
cannot be defined cross-culturally and that the word is nothing more than a pointer to
a cluster of phenomena which are contained within a wider family of rituals.
15
Jean-Pierre Vernant develops this view in A General Theory of Sacrifice and the
Slaying of Victims in the Greek Thusia (hereafter Vernant, Sacrifice) [1981], in
Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays, ed. Froma I. Zeitlin (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1991). M. F. C. Bourdillon states in his introduction to Sacrifice:
Proceedings of the Conference on Sacrifice, Windsor, England, February 2325, 1979
(hereafter Bourdillon, Sacrifice), edited by M. F. C. Bourdillon and Meyer Fortes
(New York: New York Academic Press, 1980) that most of the contributors presume
that sacrifice involves the immolation by death (at least symbolically) of a living being.
He is unwilling, however, to state categorically that all sacrifices involve either an offer-
ing to a deity or substitution, although he accepts that these themes are prominent or
at least present in many sacrificial rites. I would only note that the stray exception
should not inspire one to jettison the general rule, and that a bias against a substitu-
tionary understanding of sacrifice may have caused some researchers to overlook this
aspect of the religious systems under investigation. This issue will be discussed below
in the text. Valerio Valeri makes the point that the value of the sacrifice ultimately de-
pends on its ability to stand for and replace the sacrificer in Kingship and Sacrifice:
Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii, trans. Paula Wissing (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1995), 4649.
16
W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London: A and C
Black, [1889] 1927); Henri Huburt and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function
(London: Cohen and West, [1899] 1964).
210 chapter five
and from the gods. By cooking the slaughtered animal, men affirm
their differentiation from the animal world and their commitment to
human civilization. By eating the animal, men are forced to recognize
their flesh-bound, mortal nature, in contradistinction to that of the
gods, who have no need of material sustenance.17
Thomas Gibson discusses in Sacrifice and Sharing in the Philippine
Highlands a ritual where a pigs throat was cut while suspended over
the head of a child (along with other children) who was possessed by a
spirit that had been causing him to throw tantrums. He argues that this
act had no substitutionary significance. Rather, the swaying and death
of the pig were intended to frighten away spirits. He maintains that the
evil spirits were not offered the pig in exchange for the child (that is,
the instance of communal disorder manifested in the child is not trans-
ferred to the pig and thus out of the community). According to Gibson,
substitution and propitiation are not operative concepts in Buid sacri-
fice. Rather, the Buid slaughter their animals to assume their vitality,
which strengthens them to drive off predatory spirits.18
Maurice Bloch, although generally enthusiastic about purging
crypto-Christian interpretive approaches from the field, believes that
Detiennes and Gibsons zeal has caused them to misinterpret their
data. Bloch points to the well-known story of Iphigenia and
Agamemnon as evidence that the Greeks were familiar with the prin-
ciple of substitution in sacrifice.19 Further, he rejects Gibsons interpre-
tation of the swinging pig ceremony as simply untenable. The pig,
slaughtered as it swung over the head of the possessed child, can only
be seen as a substitute for the child.20
At stake is the conclusion that sacrifice, unless there is clear indi-
cation to the contrary, can be presumed to have a substitutionary
17
Marcel Detienne, Culinary Practice and the Spirit of Sacrifice, (hereafter
Detienne, Culinary) in Marciel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant, The Cuisine of
Sacrifice among the Greeks, trans. Paula Wissing (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press [1979], 1986), 78, 14.
18
Thomas Gibson, Sacrifice and Sharing in the Philippine Highlands: Religion and
Society among the Buid of Mindoro (hereafter Gibson, Sacrifice) (London: The Athlone
Press, 1986), 158159, 179.
19
Bloch, Prey, 30. Ren Girard, admittedly one of those exposed as practicing
scholarly crypto-Christianity, interprets Sophocles Oedipus the King and Oedipus at
Colonus, as well as Euripides The Bacchae as plays about substitutionary sacrifice
(Ren Girard, Violence and the Sacred [hereafter Girard, Violence], trans. Patrick
Gregory [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press (1972), 1977], chapters 35).
20
Bloch, Prey, 41.
component and that the overriding purpose of the sacrificial act is to

drive disharmony, or the forces that produce disharmony, from the
community, and re-establish communal unity. Whether the victim
takes the place of the individual afflicted by the effects of communal
discord, the individual who provoked the discord, or the discord itself,
it serves to free individuals and the community from discord and its
manifestations.
This conclusion confirms the position of Lienhardt and the revised
position of Bossy that sacrifice resolves communal divisions and cre-
ates group unity.21 While some sacrifices seem to have been relatively
private affairs whose effects on communal integrity were abstract and
cosmic, it is the more prominent communal sacrifices that interest us.
It is here, in the act of sacrifice, that the participants experience or
instantiate an ideal, ritual, or sacral communal whole. In the moment
of public sacrifice the community unites to drive out the sin or dishar-
mony from among them. When placed in a ritual context, both the
unity of purpose and the affirmation that the discord has been removed
tend to create a profound, even transcendent experience of this perfect
community.
Without digressing into a discussion of how rituals function, it is
important to note that scholars of early modern European history
have come to recognize the importance of rituals for their ability to
alter the perceptions and mental state of their observers and partici-
pants. Edwin Muir writes that rituals, when publicly witnessed, work
to create dramatic visible impressions as a way of stimulating certain
psycho-spiritual states or of aiding memory.22 Susan Karant-Nunn has
demonstrated that early modern rulers and clergy recognized clearly
the impact that religious rituals had in the shaping of the devotions,
21
Numerous studies in addition to that of Lienhardt have identified the restitution
of communal unity as a primary purpose of sacrifice. Valeri notes that in the religion
of ancient Hawaii, a transgression committed by a member of a group was seen as
disrupting the integrity of the group, because the transgressor was no longer in com-
munion with it. By offering to the divinity a representative object in place of himself,
he was able to reestablish full communion within the group (Valeri, Kingship, 71).
Bruce Kapferer, studying the practice of sorcery among Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri
Lanka, concludes that the sacrificial rites tend to re-harmonize social relations within
the ritual or symbolic community. However, the ritual can create social divisions with
those who are absent (Bruce Kapferer, The Feast of the Sorcerer: Practices of
Consciousness and Power [hereafter Kapferer, Sorcerer] [Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1997], 212).
22
Edwin Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Society, New Approaches to European
History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997), 191.
212 chapter five
loyalties, and mentalities of the people. It was for this reason that they
sought so determinedly to shape those rituals into a form advanta-
geous to their own agendas.23
Lienhardt describes the Dinka sacrifice, which occurs at the moment
of greatest collective concentration, as creating a moral reality (whole-
ness) to which physical realities (sickness and discord) were expected
to conform.24 The purpose of ritually enacting the ideal community
was to bring its potency to bear on the problems of the mundane com-
munity. Kapferer, for example, discusses how Sri Lankan sacrifice cre-
ates a harmonized community for the duration of the ritual.25 Walter
Burkert advances a similar argument in his discussion of the relation
between myth and ritual. For Burkert, who studies Greek and other
ancient religions, sacrifice developed out of the experience of the hunt-
ing party, who found that they could direct outward their mutual
aggression over competing for females by collectively killing large ani-
mals and then eating them harmoniously together. The sacrificial
myths that emerged from this experience created a quasi reality that
could be experienced or accessed only through ritual.26 In a similar
vein, Bloch argues that in ritual one enters into a world beyond process
and becomes a part of something that transcends the individual.27
Gibson himself describes how a family would dissolve itself into the
community when one of its members was threatened. It is in the con-
text of this larger community that the sacrifice occurs to drive out the
threat.28 Sacrifice allows members of a community to transcend their
particularity and experience incorporation into a transcendent whole,
which they identify in some way with the temporal community. The
potency that is acquired from this experience can be put to use in that
temporal community.
23
Susan C. Karant-Nunn, The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early
Modern Germany, Christianity and Society in the Modern World (London and
New York: Routledge, 1997). Muir makes a similar point about the reformers percep-
tive and skillful employment of ritual. In this context, Michael Kellers deftly ambigu-
ous ritual murder and burial of the Catholic clergy (symbolized by clerical vestments)
will be recalled.
24
Lienhardt, Dinka, 251.
25
Kapferer, Sorcerer, 212.
26
Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial
Ritual and Myth, trans. Peter Bing (Berkeley: University of California Press, [1972]
1983), 34.
27
Bloch, Prey, 45.
28
Gibson, Sacrifice, 177178.
Sacrifice and Community in the Medieval Mass
In the medieval mass, Christs substitutionary death was reenacted

daily at the altar. A close reading of the text of the canon demonstrates
that the sacrifice functioned primarily to free the community of sin
and evil and to create harmony within it. Passages of the canon indi-
cate that disruption to the peace of the community could come from
two sources: sinful behavior from its members, and malevolent forces
from outside. Pleas for deliverance within the canon mention these
two sources of disturbance conjointly. Directly after the Lords Prayer
follows the prayer Libera nos, which includes the petition Grant us,
from your favor, peace in our days, in order that, aided by the work of
your mercy, we may always be free from sin and safe from all trouble.
(Da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut ope misericordiae tuae adiuti
et a peccato simus semper liberi et ab omni perturbatione securi.)
Later, directly before the communion, is found the prayer Domini Iesu
Chisto, which makes the supplication Free me through this your
blood from all my sins and all evils, and make me always to obey your
commandments, and never allow me to be separated from you for all
eternity. (Libera me per hoc sanguinem tuum ab omnibus iniquitati-
bus meis et universis malis, et fac me tuis semper obedire mandatis, et
a te nunquam in perpetuum separari.) Christs substitutionary death,
the fruits of which were appropriated by its re-presentation, was
invoked to vanquish both of these threats. By this death he paid the just
penalty required by Gods justice for human sin, and thus opened up
the path for Gods grace to overcome human concupiscentia. Second,
his substitutionary death freed humanity from the devil and the pow-
ers of evil by which they had been taken into bondage. Both these
aspects of Christs sacrifice were necessary to restore peace to
community.
Indeed, the central theme of the canon of the mass is the desire for
peace within the Christian community. The term peace appears, in
some form, eight times in the sacrificial section of the canon. The very
first prayer of the canon Te igitur states that the sacrifice of Christ will
be offered in the first place to bring the church, among other things,
peace and unity: We humbly beseech and entreat you to accept and
bless these gifts, which in the first place we offer for your holy catholic
church. May you see fit to bring it peace, security, unity, and guidance
in the whole world. (Supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas
et benedicas haec donain primis, quae tibi offerimus pro ecclesia tua
214 chapter five
sancta catholica, quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris

toto orbe terrarum.) The request to bring peace and unity to the church
is repeated again directly after the Agnus dei: May you see fit to grant
your church peace, security, and unity according to your will.
([Ecclesiam tuam] secundum voluntatem tuam pacificare, custodire et
coadunare digneris.) The canon extends this petition to cover the
political community with which the church and its members were
intertwined when, in the prayer Libera nos, the request is made: Da
propitius pacem in diebus nostris.
It is important to note that in the medieval mass there is no specific
moment of actual sacrifice. Rather, the sacrifice takes place effectively
during the consecration of the elements when Jesus body and blood
are made present in a sacrificial manner, or as he hung on the cross.
During the moment of consecration the participation of the congrega-
tion was at its most intense. Every eye in the congregation was fixed on
the host to view the moment of transformation as the congrega-
tion uttered prayers both spontaneous and learned in this time of
extreme sacrality, when the human and divine worlds most closely
approximated each other. The focus of these prayers tended to be the
passion of Christ.29 That is to say, the congregation united in affirm-
ingthe expulsion of sin and discord from their individual and collec-
tive midst.
In the mass, the connection between the sacrificial act and the sym-
bolic creation of the ideal community characterized by peace and unity
is particularly explicit. For the sign of the host represents both the sac-
rificed victim and the harmonious Christian community, both being
designated by the same termthe body of Christ. The rite was so
arranged that at the collective moment of sacrifice, the representation
of the Christian communitys true collective, unified nature was pre-
sented before their eyes. The collective driving out of sin and discord
in the sacrifice and the creation of the harmonious community were
collapsed into one act, into one sign.
The Christian tradition of using the imagery of the body to indicate
a harmonious but not undifferentiated group, and the identification of
the church with the body of Christ goes back to the writings of the
apostle Paul. In the first letter to the Corinthians Paul writes that God
has made the church the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 27). As such, each
29
member of the body has a unique, indispensable function, and to each

is accorded an appropriate honor. Gods concern is that there may be
no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same
care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one
member is honored, all rejoice together [1 Cor. 25-26]. Again, the
themes of the absence of discord and the presence of harmony are
prominent.
Catholic theology held that the church as the spiritual body of Christ
was actually perfect and faultless. For, according to Ephesians 4:26-27,
Christ had cleansed the church by the washing of water with the word,
that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot
or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blem-
ish. It was this perfect spiritual body, the church, that was ritually cre-
ated in the mass, and signed by the elevation of the host.
Any doubt that the consecrated host was intended to signify the
spiritual as well as the physical body of Christ can be dispelled by a
comparison of Ephesians 4:26-27 with the text of the canon. The text of
the vulgate reads that Christ wanted to present to himself a glorious
church non habentem maculum, aut rugam, aut aliquid huiusmodi,
sed ut sit sancta et immaculata. (not having spot, or wrinkle, or any-
thing of that sort, but that it may be holy and spotless.) Meanwhile, the
prayer Unde et memores, which directly follows the consecration of the
elements, and in effect interprets the action that has just occurred,
states, We offer to your splendid majesty from your gifts a pure vic-
tim, a holy victim, a spotless victim. (Offerimus praeclarae maiestati
tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam
immaculatam.) If we take the term pura to be positive articulation of
the negative phrase non habentem maculum aut rugam, we can con-
clude that in the mass, the biblical terminology used to describe the
spiritual body of Christ, the ideal Christian community, has been
transposed exactly onto the consecrated host, the body of the physical,
sacrificed Christ.
The theories of Emile Durkheim contained in The Elememtary
Forms of the Religious Life can be criticized for their reductionism and
their overreach, and I shall do so below. Nevertheless, his book still
contains valuable insights, which will serve to further illuminate the
present discussion. Durkheim argues that religion is essentially a sys-
tem of ideas and rituals in which its adherents represent to themselves
the society of which they all are members. Put more succinctly, The
sacred principal is nothing more nor less than society transfigured and
216 chapter five
personified.30 For Durkheim society consists of a system of rules,

mental categories, values, and norms that reside collectively in the
minds of its members. In order for society to perpetuate itself, it
requires its members to gather on occasion, to experience themselves
as a collectivity, and to conjointly represent to themselves the essential
qualities of their society. Durkheim recognized that rituals played a
vital role in expressing and heightening individuals awareness of the
collective life.31 As they worship their god together, they are collec-
tively affirming the fundamentals of their society. By the mere fact
that [the religious practices] apparent function is to strengthen the
bonds attaching the believer to his God, they are at the same time really
strengthening the bonds attaching the individual to the society of
which he is a member, since the God is only a figurative expression of
the society.32
There is no need to accept all aspects of Durkheims interpretation of
religious phenomena. However, his views help explain why the host in
the mass would generate a twofold interpretation as both the sacrificed
divinity to be worshipped and the ideal community to be imitated.
Indeed, in the canon many layers of meaning were inscribed on the
consecrated host, the sacrificed body of Jesus Christ, that pertained
to a vision of an ideal harmonious community. As a victim, Christ
was the focus of a communal purging and disavowal of transgression
and discord. Christs presence as a body tapped into well-established
associations of the body with a harmonious community and invited
a comparison of the newly purified congregation with his own body.
Finally, as the divine founder of the Christian religion, Jesus Christ
represented and personified the common ideals and principles of the
entire community. His presence invoked, and indeed demanded, a
sense of common purpose and devotion. It may not be too much to say
that the community saw its existence and purpose in the Christ present
under the form of the host before them. Both from the perspective of
the history of religion and from textual analysis of the mass it is pos-
sible to conclude that the sacrificial component of the medieval mass
functioned primarily to restore communal harmony where it had been
disrupted by discord.
30
Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious
Sociology (hereafter Durkheim, Elementary Forms), trans. Joseph Ward Swain
(Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, [1912] 1926), 347.
31
Durkheim, Elementary Forms, 218.
32
Durkheim, Elementary Forms, 226.
Now we turn to the second part of the canon, the communion, and
to the issue of the re-emergence of divisiveness within the community.
As I indicated earlier, the question of communion must be dealt with
in the larger context of the aftermath of the sacrifice, including the
distribution of its fruits. As M. F. C. Bourdillon remarks, not all sacri-
fices conclude in a communal meal. In some cases the victim is entirely
destroyed, in others it is considered polluted, or it is reserved alone for
the priests. However, the killing of a victim is a particularly fitting
occasion for a sacred meal.33 Therefore, the pattern in the medieval
mass of sacrifice and sacrament is a common, but certainly not univer-
sal, religious form.
There is general agreement that a pooling and release of power takes
place after the unified experience of communal sacrifice. In it, the
participants tap into a power beyond themselves, which they identify
with the deity, but which is also the communal collectivity in its
entirety. The question remains, what is to be done with that power?
One possibility is that individuals will appropriate that power for
themselves to increase their personal strength by taking on the power
of the collectivity. Alternately, the attempt can be made to use the
experience of the ideal community to strengthen the actual one.
Different ritual traditions resolve this issue differently. Further, differ-
ing approaches often exist within one tradition. In the medieval mass,
for example, there existed a tension between the desire to appropriate
the released force for the sake of specific individuals, and to use it to
strengthen communal solidarity. It was the paradoxical and ambiva-
lent nature of this powerthat it derived from an experience of
communal unity but could be employed either to unite or cause divi-
sion within that communitythat would cause Michael Keller to elim-
inate the sacrifice of the mass entirely.
Detiennes and Lienhardts discussions of patterns of distributing the
sacrificial victim among the Greeks and Dinka, respectively, display
precisely this sort of ambivalence regarding the proper beneficiary of
the power made available through the sacrifice. Detienne describes
two models for distributing meat after a sacrifice. Under the first sys-
tem, the choice pieces of the victim were given away to the priest, king,
or high magistrate of the city, thereby re-enforcing privilege and dis-
parity within society. In the second, Homeric model, the animal was
33
Bourdillon, Sacrifice, 20.
218 chapter five
divided into equal parts and distributed by lottery, thus emphasizing

egalitarian social relations and communal solidarity. Later sacrificial
tradition would attempt to merge these two approaches, affirming
equality within the community by a lotteried distribution, but only
after the communitys leaders had been empowered through receiving
a special selection of meat.
The clearest example in which the power of the ritual community
was applied to strengthening consciousness of the bonds of mutual
association in the temporal community appears in Detiennes descrip-
tion of the yearly sacrifice offered to Zeus by the citizens of Cos. The
citizens came to the sacrifice in the form of subgroups, each of which
presented a victim to be offered. The priest chose one of the potential
victims for the sacrifice to represent the entire community. Thus, in the
act of sacrifice the differentiated community, split among different
classes and interests, became unified around a common sacrifice. The
unity and commonality of the citizens were then emphasized in the
distribution of the meat that followed. The meat was brought to the city
hearth and placed in the central area designated for common things.
The citizens then formed a circle, with each individual equidistant
from the meat. The meat was distributed equally, indicating that each
citizen had, in principle, the same rights of speech and powers as the
others.34 The community had come into the ceremony fractured, with
its divisions apparent. In the sacrifice, those divisions were reconciled,
and the participants became aware of their transcending unity. Finally,
the fruits of the sacrifice, the victim, who can be presumed to have
contained the vitality of the god and of the communal whole, were
distributed in a way that re-enforced the ideology of social unity and
equality.
Similarly, Lienhardt describes what appear to be two approaches to
distributing the vitality contained in the sacrificed ox. Bloch criticizes
Lienhardt for ignoring the feast component of the Dinka sacrifices.
According to Bloch, the Dinka attached great importance to feast-
ingon the animal because it restored to them the vitality they had lost
in the sacrifice of their almost-selves, the ox. Indeed, Lienhardt
admits that the Dinka term for sacrifice might be better translated as
feast.35 Bloch is correct to question whether a divided victim should be
34
Detienne, Culinary, 13.
35
Bloch, Prey, 3637.
considered an insignificant piece of meat. As to whether the division of

meat described by Lienhardt constitutes a feast in our sense of the
word, this is a question of terminology I shall leave open. We have
already discussed this first form of Dinka sacrifice, how disparate indi-
viduals at first approach the sacrificial ritual casually, how they are
gradually brought into a collective ritual experience, and how, at the
moment of greatest collective consciousness, they rush the animal,
throw it on the ground and kill it. Subsequently, as the sacred (follow-
ing Blochs reading) meat is divided up, the process of distribution pro-
ceeds according to specific rights, privileges, and loyalties. The whole
victim corresponds to the unitary solidarity of human beings in their
common relationship to the divine, while the division of the flesh cor-
responds to the social differentiation of the persons and groups taking
part.36 In this ceremony, the vitality released in the collective sacrifice
is claimed by, and contested for, among individuals seeking to enhance
their own private vitality.
Lienhardt briefly mentions, however, an alternative distribution
method that the Dinka use in another ceremony. When making sacri-
fices to the deity Flesh, the participants continue to see the animal
as an undifferentiated whole even after the sacrifice takes place. In this
context, the animal is not divided up, but is eaten communally among
the paternal relatives.37 Under these conditions, the experience of
the unitary community obtained during sacrifice is perpetuated by the
form of the distribution of the sacred product. By sharing the meat,
the sacrificing community attempts to bring some of the aspects of the
ideal community to the temporal community by declaring their com-
monality and solidarity through a communal meal.
Returning now to Bossy, I would be inclined, then, to phrase
the issue slightly differently than he does. I would argue, both from
cross-cultural studies of sacrifice and from close textual analysis of the
canon, that the moment of sacrifice in the mass was not the locus of
division within the community, but invariably of unity. Indeed, the
question of the beneficiaries of the mass, whether living or dead,
friends or enemies, pertains not to the sacrifice itself, but to the second
and much more problematic aspect of the massthe aftermath. Who
gets to benefit from the vitality unleashed in the encounter of the ideal
36
Lienhardt, Divinity, 2334.
37
Lienhardt, Divinity, 234.
220 chapter five
community with the divinethe temporal community as a collectiv-

ity, or individuals within that community? Will there be an effort to
instantiate that momentary palpable sense of solidarity, or will the
power of the collective be appropriated by certain individuals for their
own benefit, thus creating potentially more social divisiveness than
had existed before the sacrifice took place? We have seen that social
scientific theory cannot predict the answer to this latter question.
A variety of outcomes are possible depending on the historical variables
within each culture. It is, then, to this issue that historians interested in
the social implications of the mass should direct their attention.
Reforms in the Eucharistic Service
In Eucharistic matters failure [to constitute a true community charac-

terized by unity and solidarity] is no doubt the norm.38 With these
pessimistic words, Bossy wraps up his discussion of Eucharistic cele-
brations and community between 1200 and 1800. According to Bossy,
the medieval mass had succeeded in facilitating some communal sen-
sations, but these were outweighed by the exacerbating impact of the
mass on already existing social divisions. Later attempts to reform the
Eucharist further eviscerated the communal component of the cele-
bration. Counter-Reformation approaches to the mass, which empha-
sized frequent communion, led to an individualistic Eucharistic piety.39
The Protestant Reformers, who were appalled by the socially divi-
sive quality of the mass, sought to turn the Eucharistic service into a
vehicle for communal unity. For the most part, however, they also
veered into an atomistic approach to Eucharistic devotion. The
Lutheran Eucharistic practice developed into a less mystical but just as
individualistic form of its reformed Catholic counterpart. Bossy claims
that the church of England itself reverted to medieval theology in the
matter of the Eucharist emphasizing the communication of grace to
singular persons. Bossy maintains that the reformed tradition margin-
alized the ceremony and its significance entirely by relegating it to a
quarterly appendage to the preaching of the word, though there were
certainly exceptions.40
38
Bossy, Mass, 60.
39
Bossy, Mass. 53.
40
Bossy, Mass, 60.
Bossys gloomy catalogue of Eucharistic failure (from the commu-

nalist perspective) ought not to be surprising, although his characteri-
zation of Anglican and Reformed Eucharistic theology could be
challenged. The sacrificial act, although it reconstituted the ideal com-
munity, simultaneously unleashed a vitality that individuals in that
community were sorely tempted to harness for their own purposes.
Often, the purpose of the mass was thwarted in practice. As was dem-
onstrated in chapter three above, Luthers solution to the divisiveness
of the medieval mass was not to direct the energy of the ritual toward
the building of a concrete community, but to eliminate the need to
fight over the spiritual power available in the sacrament by ensuring an
unlimited supply of that power. As Bossy rightly maintains, Luthers
emphasis ultimately falls on the benefit available to the individual from
the power unleashed in the Eucharist.41
To state the obvious, people struggled over the power released in the
sacrifice of the mass because they perceived the amount of power in
each mass to be limited. It was because of this limited value that many
masses had to be said. John Jay Hughes documents an almost universal
acceptance among medieval theologians, especially of the later Middle
Ages, of the view that the mass had limited value. Further, he demon-
strates that this conviction developed out of the common religious
practice of saying numerous masses for the souls of the departed faith-
ful. Hughes quotes from lecture 27 of the Canonis misse expositio by
Gabriel Biel, perhaps the most influential Nominalist theologian writ-
ing around the turn of the sixteenth century, One Mass could be suf-
ficient to redeem all souls from all the punishments of purgatory, and
for the attainment of all goods; but this is impossible. For if that were
true, there would be no pointfor the church to order so many Masses
for various intentions.42 Then, Biel draws the conclusion that the mass
had limited value, namely, that not everyone can gain unlimited ben-
efit from the ceremony. The more vitality that goes to someone else, the
less will be left for you. After establishing the concept that a finite thing,
when divided into parts, is smaller in the parts than the whole, Biel
concludes, Whence it is clear that a Mass which is specially celebrated
for one person, or for a few, is of greater benefit to him, or to each
of the few, than if it were celebrated for more as well or for a large
41
See chapter three.
42
John Jay Hughes, Stewards of the Lord: A Reappraisal of the Anglican Orders
(London: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 50.
222 chapter five
number.43 Biel reveals that Catholic theology had to conform to the

ecclesiastical reality of endowed masses. If the principle of the unlim-
ited value of the mass were upheld, a large financial, vocational, and
theological portion of the medieval ecclesiastical system would
collapse.
Luther, having abandoned his loyalties to that system, had no need
to uphold the theology of limited power in the Eucharistic service.
Luther and other reformers often based their rejection of the mass on
the argument that it represented a daily re-sacrifice of Christ on the
altar. Christ, the argument went, was offered once for all time as a sin-
gle sacrifice for sins, then sat down at the right hand of God (Hebrews
10:12); he could never be re-offered.
Many Catholic writers from the sixteenth century to the present
have argued that the Reformers distorted Catholic theology by making
this argument, since the church never claimed to re-sacrifice Christ
in the mass. However, the debate over the degree of Protestant polemi-
cal distortion aside, the charge was not mere polemics. The important
issue at stake in this debate should be framed precisely in terms of
whether or not the Eucharistic service was of limited value. The
Lutherans were arguing, in effect, that there was only one sacrificial
act, the power from which was made particularly accessible during the
Eucharist. During each Eucharistic service, access to the entirety of
the power from that sacrificial act was granted to the participants or to
the community. The medieval Catholic tradition, both in writing and
in practice, argued that there was a single sacrifice, which fueled a vast
number of derivative sacrificial acts, each of which received a limited
power from that single eternal sacrifice.
Even if one grants that both positions held to a single sacrifice, the
difference between the two is significant, especially on a practical level.
By retaining only one sacrificial act, the entirety of whose power was
available to all at every Eucharistic service, the Protestant reformers
eliminated the need for competition for scarce spiritual resources. In
this way, the Protestant reformers sought to overcome the experienced
divisiveness in medieval Eucharistic practice.
Keller constitutes an exception to Bossys description of individual-
istic or indifferent Protestant reformers. Unlike Luther, who channeled
all of this spiritual power towards the afflicted souls of individual
Christians, Keller sought to ensure that the Christian community
43
Ibid., 54.
benefited as a collective unit. For this reason, locating the sacrifice in

an eternal context was especially advantageous for Keller.
Keller shared other Reformers concern that the mass fostered a self-
ish grasping after spiritual goods. And like the other reformers, he
denied a sacrificial act of limited effect in the Eucharistic celebration.
All the uniting power of the unitary sacrifice was made available in the
ceremony.44 Unlike Luther, not only did Keller seek to eliminate the
cause for competition over spiritual benefits, he also created a way to
distribute spiritual goods that conformed to the communitarian model
that occasionally appeared in other studies of sacrifice.
Keller was intent on insisting that the spiritual community is not
constituted in partaking of the elements of the Eucharist. Rather, the
already-formed church comes together to reflect on and to affirm its
status and obligations as the Body of Christ. That is to say, there is no
sacrifice and re-constitution of the ideal Christian community; rather
there is a remembrance of that sacrifice and of that community. The
difference between a remembrance of a sacrifice and a sacrifice is sig-
nificant. The results of a sacrifice, as we have seen, are unpredictable. In
the ritual act, a power is unleashed that cannot be easily controlled and
that may have a deleterious effect on the community that performed it.
In the remembrance meal, Keller sought to keep the focus of the
congregation on the example of the ideal sacrifice and community, the
body of Christ sacrificed and instantiated once for all time. He empha-
sizes the mental processes of recollection and confession rather than
ritual processes of sacrifice and re-creation. Thus, for Keller, the sacri-
fice and formation of the ideal community are primarily examples to
inspire and emulate, not realities to be re-created and with which to in-
fuse the temporal community with sacred power. The goal is to obtain
the same level of unity through recollection of sacrifice as would be
obtained through a traditional sacrificial ritual, only without the haz-
ards entailed in that process.
Michael Kellers Eucharistic Service and the Fraternity of the

Common Man
Up until this point, this discussion has carefully skirted the issue of the
precise nature of the community that Keller sought to fortify with his
44
For Kellers Eucharistic theology, see chapter three.
224 chapter five
communal meal. Now is the time to address this question head on. The
traditional starting point for all discussions on community and civic
religion is Bernd Moellers Reichsstadt und Reformation. In the original
1962 edition, Moeller, theorizing on the origins of the Reformations
appeal in the cities, distinguished between the more communitarian
southwest German imperial free cities and the less communal north
German cities. According to Moeller, in the South German cities, each
person understood himself to be part of a whole organic commune.45
This communal mentality, which viewed the city as a miniature ver-
sion of the corpus christianum, had a strong religious dimension. All
members were mutually obligated to help each other achieve salvation.
Moreover, the city itself was responsible for creating an environment
that worked toward the spiritual well-being of its citizens. In order to
ensure the favor of God towards its inhabitants, the city regulated mor-
als and established public worship.
Moeller came to the conclusion that the views of Huldreich Zwingli
and the Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer found widespread accept-
ance in these cities because their theologies harmonized with the cities
communal ideology. Unlike Luther, for whom the corpus christianum
was a spiritual entity with no connection to the political body, Zwingli
and Bucer maintained that there was a close relationship between the
ecclesiastical and political communities. For Zwingli, there was no
clear distinction between the civic and religious spheres; each assisted
the other in securing the physical and spiritual welfare of the citys
inhabitants. Bucer made clearer than Zwingli the limits of magisterial
power, while emphasizing the bond of love which is to be manifest in
the Christian community.
Moeller concluded that the emphases of the Swiss and South-
German reformers on a unitary ecclesio/political system and the obli-
gation to love ones neighbor accommodated the communal concerns
of South-German urban centers and explained the appeal of this theol-
ogy to their residents. He remained agnostic, however, as to whether
Zwinglis theology of the Eucharist can be placed in direct relation
to his civic thought. He is willing to entertain the possibility that the
45
Berndt Moeller, Reichstadt und Reformation: bearbeitete Neuausgabe, (hereafter
Moeller, Reichstadt) (Berlin: Evangelische Verlag, [1962] 1987), 11. The text of this
edition follows a 1966 French translation of the original 1962 edition, which had
already incorporated some modifications. To it Moeller appended his reflections up to
1985 on his original thesis from 1962. These considerations will be taken up below.
communal qualities of the Zwinglian ceremony, contrasted with the

individualist Lutheran approach, inclined residents of communalist
cities to opt for a Zwinglian reformation. However, he refuses to
advance beyond that level of speculation.46
Scholars, while crediting Moeller with helping to rehistoricize the
field of Reformation history, have challenged his conclusions on two
counts. He has been criticized for failing to recognize the communal
quality of many north German cities. That these cities accepted
Lutheranism, or even a rejuvenated Catholicism, undermines his
assertion that Zwinglianism was especially adapted to cities with a
communal constitution. In the last section of this chapter, the example
of Augsburg will serve to demonstrate that the existence of communal
Lutheranism in northern cities does not, in fact, undermine the posi-
tion that a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist held special appeal
to cities where a communal ideology held prominence.
The second objection to Moellers work, which will be addressed
directly, concerns his alleged romanticization of the late-medieval
commune. Since 1963, scholars have written extensively on communal
ideology and the degree to which it was realized in the political life
of cities and towns of the Empire in the sixteenth century.47 The term
Gemeinde, which can be translated as either commune, community,
or congregation, referred to a wide array of autonomous or semi-
autonomous groups that sought to determine their own membership,
establish their own system of self-regulation, and engage in some form
of common life. Gemeinde could refer to political associations, or
incorporated political units like towns or cities. It could refer to social
or religious associations, like neighborhoods or parishes. Or the term
could refer to organizations that had multiple functions, like guilds.48
Guilds, in addition to fulfilling an economic function, also facilitated
social solidarity, religious security, and, in cities (like Augsburg) that
had guild constitutions, political participation.
The commune emerged in Germany as a political phenomenon in
rural areas around the thirteenth century, although earlier in some
parts of the west, and later in the east. Based on the creation of nuclear
46
Moeller, Reichstadt, 48, note 96.
47
For a discussion of communal ideology, its social origin, and its function in
sixteenth-century society, see Bob Scribners Communities and the Nature of Power
(hereafter Scribner, Communities), in Germany: A New Social and Economic History,
vol. 1, idem, ed., (London: Arnold, 1996).
48
Scribner, Communities, 294296.
226 chapter five
settlements that emerged out of the system of three-field crop rotation,

the introduction of a money economy, and the decline of the seignio-
rial demesne, rural villages slowly acquired a degree of jurisdiction
over their own affairs. Peter Blickle maintains that that communalism
was a fundamental form of rural and urban political organization
between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries and formed a
contrast to the vertical principles of feudalism.49
The ideological history of communalism has received less attention
in scholarship than has its political and economic dimension. It is gen-
erally accepted, however, that communal ideology is structured around
the two oppositional terms gemein nutz (common good) and eigen
nutz (self-interest). Members of the commune were expected to set
aside their own self-interest and personal ambitions for the sake of the
common good. Communities struggled to determine both what con-
stituted the common good and who was fit to stand above competing
interests and produce a solution beneficial to the commune as a whole.
Moellers, and to an extent, Blickles, conception of political com-
munes as bastions of communal sentiment, enfranchisement, and hor-
izontal political relations has been criticized by Thomas Brady, among
others. Drawing on his research in Strasbourg, he argues that the urban
communes of the sixteenth century were ruled by a neo-aristocratic
elite, scarcely distinguishable from the feudal aristocracy. The commu-
nal ideal was at best an idealistic social vision, at worst political propa-
ganda used by the magistracy for its own benefit.50 Bob Scribner has
similarly concluded that urban communes in the sixteenth century
were as much dominated by principles of lordship and oligarchy as
they were by reciprocity and commonality.51 He suggests that rather
than seek ideal communities, it would be more useful for scholarship
to focus on the communal ideal. Communalism was a concept with an
unfixed, and therefore disputed, meaning. It could also be employed at
certain moments to inspire social and political change, especially when
a movement was imbued with religious fervor.52
49
Peter Blickle, Communalism as an Organizational Principle between Medieval
and Modern Times, in Communal Reformation, 38.
50
Brady has expressed this view most recently in Communities, Politics, and
Reformation in Early Modern Europe, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought
(Leiden: Brill, 1998), 119.
51
Scribner, Communities, 310315.
52
Bob Scribner, Communalism: Universal Category or Ideological Construct? a
Debate in the Historiography of Early Modern Germany and Switzerland, The
Historical Journal 37, 1 (March 1994): 204.
While these criticisms from Brady and Scribner are valid, more
important for our concerns is the criticism indirectly articulated by
Scribner in his discussion of the communal reformation: The central
flaw in [the communal Reformations] construction is the presumed
identity between the socio-legal-political commune and the religious
community.53 Scribner rejected the view of coextensive communes
because the level of enfranchisement in the political commune was
considerably lower than membership levels in the religious commune.
However, his remarks point to another critique of this position based
on its latent functionalist assumptions.
Functionalism had its roots in the writings of Durkheim but would
emerge as a discrete social-scientific theory in the 1940s under Broni-
slaw Malinowski and Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown. Originally
intended to counter evolutionary social theory (whether derived from
biology or Marxism), classic functionalism sought to define all cultural
practices in terms of their current utility or function, rather than to
place them on what they saw as a pseudo-historical timeline of societal
development. Consequently, functionalists saw society as a system or
an organic whole in which each custom functioned to maintain the
viability and integrity of the social system. Implicit in this view was the
conception of society as a nearly sentient organism that regulated all
cultural forms to ensure its own maintenance. Fundamental for its
maintenance was a high degree of cohesion and unity. The function of
religion within the social system was to ensure the continued harmony
of society. Therefore, the referent of all religious ritual was the unified
social organism, and its function was to preserve the unity of that
organism.54
There exists a tendency in studies of the interaction between the
religious and the socio-political commune to rely on a sometimes
unspoken classic functionalist model. Accordingly, it is assumed that a
religious ritual that seeks to strengthen communal bonds not only
refers to a socio-political group, but also that this socio-political group
is society as a whole. This assessment builds upon Bucs recent criti-
cism of historians unconsidered use of functionalist models in their
53
Ibid., 205.
54
For a discussion of the development of functionalism, its various schools, and
common critiques of its approach, see Patrick Baert, Social Theory in the Twentieth
Century (New York: New York University Press, 1998); Robert Layton, An Introduction
to Theory in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
228 chapter five
analysis of the interaction of religion and society. According to Buc, by

reducing religion to its social function, they adopt a monistic view of
society, with politics and religion functioning as part of an integral
whole. By doing so, they distort the dualistic quality of those societies
and the contested nature of spiritual and temporal power in the
European Middle Ages and early modern times. Further, they over-
look the fact that people living during these periods were aware of the
possibility that religion could be instrumentalized and made subservi-
ent to the interests of the temporal realm. They, however, considered
this a devilish perversion and not a normative model for society.55
As my above analysis of the mass suggests, I believe that some func-
tionalist insights can be effectively used to illuminate connections
between religious and social values and institutions. People tend to
select ideologies that mutually reinforce each other across various
spheres of life. That a groups dominant religious model would reflect
its political ideology should not be surprising; in fact, it ought to be
expected. However, evidence of correspondence between religious and
social ideologies should not lead one to reduce or subordinate the reli-
gious to the social, or infer that members of the society could not make
distinctions between the two. My second critique of functionalism,
which applies to both its extreme and more moderate forms, concerns
the fact that functionalists have erred not merely in reducing the con-
cerns of the sacred sphere to those of the temporal sphere (thus pre-
suming that the practitioners of medieval and early modern religion
were unaware of the real significance of their religious system). Rather,
to the extent that religious ceremonies and ideologies did undergird
and strengthen temporal groups and institutions, such functionalism
erred (and those who adopt its models also err) in equating the tempo-
ral community of concern to the religious community with the politi-
cal or social whole to which the religious communitys members
belonged.
This view is reflected in Moellers assumption that Zwinglis unitary
view of civic and religious societies would have had a special appeal
to cities where communal ideology was strong. His presumption is
clearly that individuals within those cities who espoused communal
ideals were identifying themselves primarily with and seeking princi-
pally the strengthening of the urban commune in its entirety. Therefore,
55
Buc, Dangers, 195197, 236240.
a religion that promoted the seamless interdependence of both com-

munes, and even posited their near identity, would have had particular
draw for them.
Similarly, Blickle has room in his scheme for only one form of socio-
political commune, which encompassed, in principle, the entire village
or civic population. The members of the communes he discusses
viewed the Reformation as a medium through which to strengthen the
institutions of the rural or civic commune and to promote solidarity
among its members. They desired to practice a religion that increased
the power of that commune and reflected its values by granting to the
commune the right to judge doctrine, to elect and dismiss the pastor,
and to assert authority over legal matters that had fallen under ecclesi-
astical jurisdiction. Further, the preacher was expected to proclaim to
the communal whole the pure Gospel, which was largely a message of
brotherly lovethe theological articulation of the communal principle
of good neighborliness. According to Blickle, these characteristics,
together with the burgherization of the clergy, reflected and furthered
the egalitarian and representative qualities of the communes.56 Blickle
is always careful not to fall prey to functionalist social reductionism,
whereby the adoption of the Reformation becomes all about political
concerns or developments. He underscores the point that civic and vil-
lage programs to communalize the church and instrumentalize the
Gospel reflected deep spiritual concerns for the souls of the commu-
nity as well as a desire to implement a particular social and political
vision.57
I am not disputing that Blickles model fits his data as he presents it
in his two case studies of Erfurt and Memmingen. In both instances,
the commune re-emerged in the wake of the Reformations introduc-
tion and the Peasants War as a governing force in the city. In Erfurt,
the city council was forced to swear allegiance to the commune, whose
support was to be required in important political decisions.58 In
Memmingen, the commune, which had been in political decline since
the mid-fifteenth century, forced the hand of the city council and
56
Peter Blickle, The Social Dialectics of the Reformation Movement, in Communal
Reformation, 192199.
57
Peter Blickle, The Reformation in the City and Territory of Erfurt: A Paradigmatic
Case (hereafter Blickle, Erfurt), in Communal Reformation, 146147.
58
Blickle, Erfurt, 130.
230 chapter five
successfully pressured it to decide in conjunction with representatives

of the commune on the introduction of the Reformation into the city.59
What I would like to suggest, however, is that while citizens of early
modern cities did perceive relationships between their spiritual com-
munes and their political/social/economic communes, and while they
did seek consonant, mutually re-enforcing ideologies in both com-
munes, the commune with which they most identified, and with which
they sought primarily to integrate their communal religion, was not
necessarily the commune representing the civic whole. Nicholas
Terpstra has argued that fraternalism, or fraternitas, was an important
way to conceptually and institutionally structure society in the early
modern period. Although it is usually treated in its isolated forms
Terpstra mentions guilds, confraternities, youth abbeys, and compag-
nonages (and we might add parishes, drinking societies, and
neighborhood associations)fraternalism ought to be considered as a
broad and influential cultural form or resource.60 This period was pop-
ulated by large numbers of semi autonomous, lay, voluntary, charita-
ble, mutually disciplining communities, which should be seen as part
of a single phenomenon and analyzed as such.61 Although some of
these institutions disappeared under the influence of the Reformation,
the reformers were adept at employing this cultural form in the crea-
tion of new Protestant institutions.
There were at least five religious confraternities in fifteenth-century
Augsburg that accepted lay members: St Ulrichs, St. Annas, St. Moritzs,
Hl. Kreuzs, and St. Georgs. TwoSt. Stephen and St. Mangaccepted
only clergy. While confraternities mostly disappeared in the 1520s and
would not re-emerge in Augsburg until the second half of the sixteenth
century, their pre-Reformation vitality is a testament to the fraternal
impulse of the Augsburg citizenry.62All of the confraternities were
associated with Augsburg churches, and none seem to have had any
59
Peter Blickle, Memmingen A Center of the Reformation, in Communal
Reformation, 4046.
60
Terpstra, Ignatius, 165166. For a more recent summary of the state of confra-
ternity studies, see Christopher Black, Introduction: The Confraternity Context, in
Early Modern Confraternities in Europe and the Americas: International and
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Christopher Black and Pamela Gravestock
(Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006), 134.
61
Ibid., 176177.
62
Very litte modern research has been conducted on pre-Reformation confraterni-
ties in Augsburg (Kieling, Gesellschaft, 292294). Recent scholarship has focused on
post-Reformation confraternities. See, for example, Gerhard Hltze, Der guete Tod:
ties to guilds or drawn members associated with a particular trade, as

was the case in some cities. All the confraternities, with the exception
of the Confraternity of the Holy Body and Blood at Hl. Kreuz, devel-
oped at the initiative of the churchs clergy.
The confraternity at St. Moritz emerged first at the end of the four-
teenth century as a way for those priests of St. Moritz who scraped
together a living by performing masses for the souls of the dead to pool
their meager salaries and to say masses for each others souls after
death.63 No later than 1421, Augsburg laity began joining the confra-
ternity by endowing masses to be said for their souls.64 Unlike some
other confraternities, St. Moritz continued to accept new members
through the 1520s. The confraternity at St. Ulrich and Afra was
founded by the monasterys abbot in 1440 and from the beginning
included a mixture of clergy and laity.65 Offering members indulgences
and masses for the dead, the confraternity was popular with clergy and
laity alike up to 1521, when the admission of new members seems to
have abruptly ceased.66 The year 1494 saw the founding of a confrater-
nity at St. Anna. Founded by St. Annas prior, it offered men and women
yearly masses for their souls and participation in the benefits of the
friars meritorious work. In exchange, the laitys contributions were
expected to aid in the construction of the friary church.67 It finally dis-
solved when the friary was closed in 1534. A similar arrangement was
apparently in place at St. Georg.68 Alone among the confraternities, the
Confraternity of the Holy Body and Blood at Hl. Kreuz was founded
by Augsburg laity. Founded in honor of the churchs miraculous fleshly
host, the Wunderbarlichen Gutes, by 1482 on the day of Corpus Christi
members were involved in processions involving figures of the passion
of Christ. In 1487 they received a confirmation of their confraternity
Vom Sterben und Tod in Bruderschaften der Dizese Augsburg und Altbaierns
(Augsburg: Verlag des Vereins fr Augsburger Bistumsgeschichte e.V., 1999).
63
Alfred Schrder, Die Vikarierbruderschaft bei St. Moritz, ihre Grndung,
Verfassung und ihr ltestes Anniversarienbuch, Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins fr
Schwaben und Neuburg 9 (1892): 8990.
64
Ibid., 95.
65
Albert Haemmerle, ed., St. Ulrichs-Bruderschaft Augsburg: Mitgliedsverzeichnis
14661521 (Munich: Self-Published, 1949), 11.
66
Ibid., 177.
67
Albert Haemmerle, Das Aufnameformular der St. Annenbruderschaft in
Augsburg vom Jahre 1494, Vierteljahreshefte zur Kunst und Geschichte Augsburgs 4
(1947): 1011.
68
232 chapter five
from the bishop, authorizing the processions, an accompanying mass,

and an indulgence for those participating in or attending the proces-
sion. This confraternity retained its lay character, and the leadership of
the organization was elected from among the lay members.69
When we understand the communal model, whether taking form in
the guild, the confraternity, or the neighborhood leadership structure,
in terms of the fraternal mentality and method of social organization
of early modern society, we gain a clearer picture of the mental and
social landscape of the period. Therefore, it can no longer be taken for
granted that all articulations of communal sentiment and all attempts
to fortify communal bonds or communal ideologies have the entire
social or political community as their point of reference. Rather, an
individuals principal source of communal identity often lay not with
the civic political community, but with one or a number of fraternal
organizations to which he belonged. Michael Kellers Eucharistic meal
sought to solidify the bonds not (just) of the entire civic community,
but (also) of the fraternal organization of the parish of the Franciscan
church. Further, this communal model would have resonated more
clearly with the values of his parishioners, who identified more closely
with fraternal organizations, particularly their guilds (if they were
members), than with the civic commune. Kellers effectiveness in
employing this approach reveals an important aspect of the mental
landscape of the artisanal classes in early modern Augsburg.
By the time Keller had arrived in Augsburg, guilds had been at the
center of Augsburgs political life for over 150 years. Since the guild
revolution of 1368, Augsburg was governed by a guild constitution.
Guild membership was a prerequisite for citizenship in Augsburg, and
it was through their guilds that citizens participated in the political life
of the city. Each year, during the week before Christmas, the members
of each of the citys seventeen guilds met to elect their guild master and
two delegates, all of whom would represent them in the citys small
council, the main organ of city government.70 The small council was
made up of the seventeen current guild masters, the seventeen guild
masters from the previous year, thirty-four guild representatives (two
for each of the seventeen guilds), and twelve patricians elected by the
guild members on the council. From its ranks it chose the ten principal
69
Ibid., 293.
70
Before 1476 the six larger guilds sent two representatives each, and the eleven
larger guilds sent one each.
office holders of the city: the two mayors, the three Einnehmer, who
managed the collection of resources, the three Baumeister, who man-
aged their expenditure, and the two Siegler, who controlled the city
seal. Each divided office was to be occupied by one patrician and one
or two guild members. The small council would generally meet one to
two times per week. The ten office holders plus an additional patrician
and two guild members from the small council formed the council of
thirteen, the Dreizehnerrat. This council met multiple times weekly,
prepared the agenda for the small council, and discussed urgent
matters.
Further, the guild members elected twelve representatives, or
Zwlfer, to sit on the citys large council. The large council was com-
posed of the seventeen guild masters, the twelve patricians from the
small council, and the twelve Zwlfer from each of the guilds, totaling
233 members in all. The large council was only convened on ceremo-
nial occasions or when the small council was deciding a matter of great
consequence for the city and desired a display of broad support. All the
positions in both the large and small councils, as well as all offices filled
by members of the council, were unpaid. Therefore, a certain amount
of wealth was required to occupy positions, especially the more time-
consuming ones.71
On paper, the guild constitution provided artisans with a significant
opportunity for participation in their citys political process through
membership in their guilds. They were given the power to elect an
overwhelming majority of both the large and small councils. Further,
they indirectly controlled who would occupy all of the city offices not
reserved for the patricians, and who would constitute the council of
thirteen. They had the opportunity to elect people who would repre-
sent their interests at the highest levels of civic government.
While citizenship and guild membership mutually implied each
other, each being a precondition for the other, it was exclusively as
guild members that Augsburgers exercised their political rights and
influenced the political process. An Augsburger, unless in an irregular
or extra-legal way, was unable to have an impact on the governance of
his city as a pure citizen, independent of his status as a guild member.
For the guild member, societys constituent parts were not individual
71
For a discussion of the composition of the Augsburg guilds, see Rogge, Nutzen,
1227; Goner, Kirchenhoheit, 2527.
234 chapter five
citizens but a series of interlocking fraternal groups centered around

the guilds, which were interwoven with affiliated confraternities,
neighborhoods, and parishes. An artisans primary identity, therefore,
would have been located in the fraternal commune, most clearly the
guild, through which his interests could be represented vis--vis other
groups within the city. As a citizen, that is, as a member of the civic
commune, he was, on a practical, daily level, powerless. A communal
ideology espousing solidarity, brotherly love, and sacrificing self-
interest to the common good would have resonated most with refer-
ence to the fraternal commune of the guild, rather than with reference
to the civic commune. Solidarity within the fraternal group was criti-
cally important, since it was through this group that individuals were
empowered to exercise influence on society as a whole. The fraternal
vision of the civic commune consisted as much in competition over
conflicting interests as it did in self-sacrifice and solidarity.
A few examples will prove that artisans believed in abiding by com-
munal values within their fraternal communes while pursuing group
self-interest in the wider civic commune. P. J. Broadhead cites the regu-
lations of the weavers as recorded in the mid-sixteenth century,
although the principle behind them is much older. The weavers agreed
collectively to limit their own production for the good of the entire
group. Shops were limited to three looms each, and those who
attempted to obtain a fourth were accused of seeking their own advan-
tage, since many lacked the space or capital to acquire a fourth loom.
Further, hiring additional employees had to be approved by the guild.72
These measures were all intended to hold down production, even at
the expense of individual weavers, in order to ensure excess produc-
tion did not drive down prices. Further, the majority of the cloth was
sold through the guild house by the Kellermeister.73 This process
ensured that all weavers had an equal opportunity to have their wares
displayed and sold.
When they were relatively well unified, the guilds operated as effec-
tive interest groups advocating for the well-being of their members
within the government. Broadhead himself concludes that the guilds
were often at odds with each other, as each pursued the interests of its
72
P. J. Broadhead, Guildsmen, Religious Reform and the Search for the Common
Good: the Role of the Guilds in the Early Reformation in Augsburg, The Historical
Journal, 39, 3 (September 1996): 591.
73
Ibid.
own members. In 1461, the emperor forced Augsburg to enter into war
against Duke Ludwig of Bavaria-Landshut. In the aftermath of the war,
excise taxes were raised, which was especially damaging to the weavers
and the bakers. After many of the less wealthy guilds, who felt that
their members were being unfairly burdened by the decision to raise
excise rather than property taxes, protested against the tax, the council
agreed to establish a commission that would oversee the spending of
the new revenue. All the guilds except the most heavily affected ones,
the weavers and the bakers, agreed to participate in the new commis-
sion. Eventually, the two holdouts prevailed and the excise tax was
repealed.74 The guilds worked together when the interests of their
members overlapped, but any semblance of a common front dissolved
as guilds interests diverged. Nevertheless, this example demonstrates
how membership in a guild could bring an individual citizens voice
into the center of the citys decision-making process. A unified guild
could achieve significant results for its members.
The importance to guild members of securing meaningful represen-
tation on the city council is highlighted by the career of Ulrich Schwarz
(14221478). Schwarz was a member of the carpenters guild, one of
the eleven smaller guilds that at the time only sent one representative
each to the large council (the six larger guilds sent two). He joined the
small council in 1459 after being elected guild master. He was first
elected mayor in 1471, and (according to the custom that one could
not serve successive terms as mayor) then again in 1473 and 1475.
Then, contradicting all good practice, he stood for and was elected
mayor again in 1476, and then again in 1477 and 1478.
In 1476, the first year of his irregular tenure, he proposed to the
large council significant changes in the citys governing structure.
Henceforth, all guilds, regardless of size, would be able to send two
representatives to the city council. Further, the council of thirteen
would no longer be composed of the city office holders, who were
mostly the city elite, two guild representatives, and a patrician. Rather,
it would be composed of a representative from each of the guilds, the
two mayors, and a patrician. Both of the measures passed.
These measures antagonized many within the civic elite as well as in
the imperial court. Further, Schwarzs break with the tradition of shar-
ing the mayoral office as well as charges of malfeasance and personal
74
Rogge, Nutzen, 3047.
236 chapter five
immorality led to his arrest and execution in spring 1478. In the after-
math of his downfall, the council decided to keep Schwarzs changes
regarding guild representation, while restoring the council of thirteen
to its old composition.
Rogge has told the whole story of the twisted path that led to
Schwarzs destruction, and has discussed attempts to assign blame in
the affair.75 Here, I shall focus on the observation that Schwarz and his
allies fought to ensure that the smaller guilds achieved equal represen-
tation on the city council. This change increased the power of his own
guild. In addition, Schwarz believed that giving the smaller guilds the
sensation of being full participants in the political process and guaran-
teeing that all the guilds were represented in the council of thirteen,
would secure peace and stability in the city.76 Schwarzs approach to
achieving social harmony reveals an artisanal, fraternal vision of the
civic commune. It is a civic society pacified not so much by mutual
submission to a purported common good as by a sense among
citizens that everyones self-interest was being fairly represented. If all
citizens perceived that the system was providing them with the oppor-
tunity, through their guild (fraternal) representative, to have their
concerns heard and interests advocated at the highest levels of govern-
ment, they should see themselves as enfranchised stakeholders in
the society.
By the end of the fifteenth century, two interrelated factors had
injected themselves into this political system, causing guild members
increasingly to feel excluded from city government. First, a gulf opened
up within the guilds between traditional small craftsmen and wealthy
entrepreneursmore merchant than artisanwho were taking advan-
tage of the developing mercantile economy. The wealthy guild mem-
bers came to dominate leadership positions within the guilds and
commonly represented the guilds on the city council. Frequently the
interests of the wealthy guild merchants and the traditional guild arti-
sans diverged. Fighting broke out within the guilds, destroying group
solidarity. The city council was called on to intervene in intra-guild
disputes between the wealthy and traditional members. We have
already discussed in chapter four above the dispute in the weavers
guild between artisans and merchants over the importation of long
yarn. In 1490 the city council had to intervene in the tailors guild in a
75
Rogge, Nutzen, 4897.
76
Ibid., 66.
debate between members and leadership over the distribution of guild-

owned grain during an inflationary period.77
In late 1525 a dispute broke out between guild members and guild
leadership of the tailors guild over the right to wear distinctively
colored clothing. Four members of the guild, together with the support
of up to forty other young tailors, decided to ask permission of the
guild leadership, the guild master and the twelve, for guild members to
wear distinctive colored leggings. They claimed that it was the custom
in many of the surrounding cities that masters and journeymen wear
distinctive clothing, and further that the practice of wearing colors was
recorded in the guild book, although forbidden in practice.78 The guild
leadership, after considering the matter, decided to refuse permission
to wear the distinctive leggings, and rather to remain with the old cus-
tom. Some supportive of the colored leggings were of the opinion that
if the guild leadership would not allow it, they would bring the matter
to the city council.79 Plans were in the works to form a commission to
bring the issue before the council.80 Matters came to a head during a
lunch held at the guild hall following the annual oath-swearing cere-
mony at the city hall, when the new government was sworn in and citi-
zens swore their obedience to the government. Some of the guild
members approached the table where the guild master and the twelve
were seated and wanted to reopen the issue of the colored leggings. The
leadership refused to discuss the matter, eventually getting up from
their table at the front of the room and walking out. A few guild mem-
bers followed them for some length, demanding that they reconsider
the issue.81 Apparently, this confrontation was accompanied by a gen-
eral uproar, some shouting, claims of unfair treatment, and a debate
about which side was more Evangelical. One tailor demanded of the
guild master whether his behavior was Evangelical.82 Another tailor
defended his own behavior, claiming that it was not the gospel
77
Rogge, Nutzen, 178.
78
StAA Urgichten K3 [15231525] Der 4 Schneider Sachen 24. II-5 III [1526],
I, 2v-3r.
79
Wer keins argen handls vnd furnemens wie geredt worden/ auch kein arder
maynung nie gewesen dan so zunftmeister vnd die zwelf abschlegeg antwert geben
worden sollechs sachen an ein Erbern Rat gelangen zu lassen (Ibid., 4v)
80
Ain Auschu von vier oder zehenn gemacht werde/vff das sie sich vergleicht
eins Auschu (Ibid., V, 1v).
81
Ibid., 1r, 2r.
82
Het wol auch gehert das einer zu dem zunftmeister geredt ob das euangelisch
seye (Ivid., IV, 6r).
238 chapter five
(Evangelium) that one do nothing about the matter.83 One tailor

recalled one of the ringleaders yelling something about the guild book
and the gospel.84 These religious references reflect the early and deep
penetration of Evangelical preaching in Augsburgs artisanal guilds.
Although there was disagreement over what constituted appropriate
behavior in this conflict, the gospel had apparently become the
undisputed standard by which actions were to be measured. In the
end, however, the tailors had nowhere to turn. The city council, on
which the guild master of the tailors guild would have sat, thoroughly
investigated the matter, calling in dozens of tailors for questioning and
eliciting meek statements of obedience from the ringleaders.
It was a nave hope that the city council would support the commis-
sion. Filled mostly by guild masters and suspicious of all claims to
popular sovereignty, the city council moved swiftly to buttress the
authority of the guild leadership.
This incident demonstrates the tense relationship between the guild
leadership and the rank-and-file members. The plan to form a com-
mission to appeal the decision of the guild leadership to the city coun-
cil constituted a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy of the guild
master and the twelve. Essentially a reassumption of sovereignty by the
guild membership, it implied a charge that the leadership was no
longer representing the interests of the guild. It also demonstrates that
their understanding of the commune as a political category did not, in
the minds of the guild members, apply to the civic commune alone.
They planned to use the same methods when dealing with a recalci-
trant guild leadership as had been used in negotiations with an unre-
sponsive city government in the Schilling affair, namely, the election of
a commission to negotiate the return of good government. (The same
word, Ausschu, or commission, is used in the sources for both cases.)
Indeed, the formation of citizen commissions by reconstituted com-
munes to address governments perceived to be no longer representing
the well-being of the commune was a widespread phenomenon in
early modern German cities and reflected the fundamentally commu-
nal assumptions of the populations.85
83
Vnnd gehert dz leinhart stedlin geredt Es were dech nit das Euangeli das man
nichts darvon oder darzu solt then (Ibid., 2r). Multiple witnesses attest to Stedlin
making this statement.
84
das er von dem Euangeli vnnd zunftbuech geschrienn hat (Ibid., V, 4r).
85
For a general discussion of this phenomenon, see Schilling, Religion, 321.
This communal outlook could provide the framework for interpret-

ing the proper relationship between the leadership and the members of
any communal organization in Augsburg, including the family. The
premise that the group concedes to the leadership the right to repre-
sent the interests and seek the well-being of the group, but also retains
the right to temporarily regather sovereignty to itself if the leadership
is not fulfilling its proper function, may stand behind the remarks of
Anna Fanacht, who was brought into the city council for questioning
in the wake of the Schilling affair. Fanacht, who had been overheard
making disturbing remarks during a sermon at St. Anna, was outraged
that so much money was being spent on guards to protect the city
council from its own citizens when that money could have been used
to purchase food for the poor.86 She expresses dismay that decisions are
being made by the council in secret and demands that the commune
be informed of what is going on.87 To effect this outcome, she demands
that our husbands take their turn on the council.88 The proper repre-
sentatives (in this case, husbands) of the commune (in this case, the
family) must represent the communal interests, hereby ensuring that
the government enacts good policy. Should, however their representa-
tives fail to act for the good of the commune, she reserves the right for
women to temporarily regather that authority and take action them-
selves, Further she said that if our men do not take action, we women
intend to or must take action.89
The guild representatives, as part of a powerful intra-craft interest
group, could no longer be counted on to represent the interests of the
guild as a whole. In addition to being perceived as representing their
own mercantile interests against the other guild members, they began
to identify themselves with the emerging civic oligarchy and its magis-
terial ideology. The term Obrigkeit, or magistracy, begins to appear in
Augsburg records in 1439.90 The use of the term reflects an emerging
view among city leaders that they constituted a sovereign regime to
which the citizens owed their loyalty and obedience. Evidence exists
86
StAA, Urgichten F3 [15231525]; the interrogation records of Anna Vasnachtin
(Anna Fanacht) September 15 - October 3, 1524, 2r.
87
Dann man hanndel/vnnder dem huetlin das werd niefur not sein. Die gemaind/
werd auch wissen womit man vmbganng (Ibid.).
88
Vnnsere mann/muessen auch ain mal doben sitzen (Ibid.).
89
Weiter gesagt wann unsere man nit dartzu thun/so wollen oder mussen wir
weyber dartzu thun (Ibid.).
90
Rogge, Nutzen, 169.
240 chapter five
that this process advanced over the course of the century in the intro-
duction of the term Untertan, or subject, at the end of the fifteenth
century to refer to people who had been previously referred to simply
as citizens.
In order to solidify its power over its subjects, the Augsburg city
council embarked on a policy of breaking the independence and influ-
ence of the guilds, subordinating their authority to its own. Beginning
around 1440, all oaths sworn to guild masters were explicitly declared
subordinate to the oath sworn to the city council. Beginning in the
1470s, all changes in guild regulations were made subject to the
approval of the city council.91 Thereby, the council largely eliminated
the only center of political power in the city that could compete with it
for the allegiance of the citys citizens.
At the end of the fifteenth century, the council developed to its own
advantage the system of quartermasters and block captains that had
traditionally been used to organize the city watch and militia. The
council transformed the organization into an arm of its authority.
Henceforth, block captains were to collect residence and taxation data
on all their charges and relay that information to the council.
Traditionally, the guilds had served the function of collecting data and
mediating council directives to their members. The council engaged in
clever administrative reorganization intended to eliminate the feisty
and independent guilds, replacing them with a mediating institution
directly under its control.92 The result was the disaffection of the guilds.
The cumulative effect of these measures was to cause the guild-based
political system to lose legitimacy in the eyes of many guild members.
Their institutions were plagued by divisions, their leaders were no
longer perceived as representing their interests, and the strength and
independence of the guilds themselves had been severely reduced by
the increasingly self-confident magistracy.
The city councils justification for these policies was invariably the
common good of the civic commune. It was important to the leaders of
the citys wealthiest guilds, who controlled the city council, to prevent
the broader guild membership, especially that of the lesser craft guilds,
from pursuing their interests. Rather, they must have their policies
subject to the broader interests of the city. According to the magis-
trates view of the civic commune, the existence of other powerful
91
Ibid., 169172.
92
Ibid., 142149.
parties based on self-interest was a dangerous threat to peace and unity

under their dominion. Only the magistracy, they thought, was fit to
mediate the various disputes and determine the social good for the
civic commune. Guilds were required to subordinate themselves to the
decisions of the city council, which stood above individual interest
groups. Entire guilds could be charged with revolt for continuing to
represent the interests of their members.93 The vision of the civic com-
mune articulated by the city council was entirely different from the
fraternal view of the artisans, although they did use the same terms:
common good, self-interest, and commune.
By the second decade of the sixteenth century in Augsburg, the fra-
ternal model of civic communal life, based on guilds that could credi-
bly and viably advocate in the government for the interests of their
members, was moribund. As a result, Augsburgs citizens were left with
the alternatives of either attempting to repair the old fraternal system,
thus remaining divided into various interest groups, each character-
ized by solidarity and promotion of the common good within itself, or
ideologically dissolving the multiple guild system into one unified
group, perhaps a fraternity of the common man. This reconstitution
transferred the values that applied to fellow guild members onto the
broader community of all guild members. They tried to ensure politi-
cal legitimacy for this new fraternity by identifying the fraternity of the
common man with the civic commune itself, the almost mythical civic
body of political theory and magisterial rhetoric whose consent formed
the basis for legitimate exercise of political power by the magistracy.
Such an identification was largely a political construct, since the frater-
nity of the common man did not include the political elite, the disen-
franchised, or women.94
In the commune, as in the fraternity of the common man, all citi-
zens and guild members were to be brothers, unified in fraternal
93
Ibid., 174179.
94
Heinz Schilling speaks of a similar dissolution of the political system in times of
popular dissatisfaction into a communal and corporate original state (gemeindlich-
genossenschaftlichen Urzustand). In these instances, the commune retakes the politi-
cal power that it had delegated to the city council, forms citizen committees, and only
restores the regular exercise of power to the council when it has recognized the com-
munal or corporate source of its authority (Civic Republicanism in Late Medieval and
Early Modern German Cities, in Religion, Political Culture and the Emergence of Early
Modern Society: Essays in German and Dutch History, Studies in Medieval and
Reformation Thought (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992). I have chosen the term the fraternity
of the common man because, at least in Augsburg, the principal source of the broth-
erly unity that characterized this manifestation derived from the fraternal experience.
242 chapter five
fellowship and constituting a massive interest group whose legitimacy

could not be undermined by the city council, as had happened with the
guilds, precisely because the commune was the source of all political
legitimacy. Thus reconstituted, the fraternity of the common man (by
which I mean this group of men positioned between the disenfran-
chised and the ruling elite) hoped again to be in a position to influence
the policy of the government.
As we saw in chapter two above, there is clear evidence that this
conception of popular sovereignty was familiar to Augsburg citizens.
The remarks made by Peter Berringer during the holy water affair, as
well as by others after the August 6 gathering before the city hall dem-
onstrate that people understood the council to be ultimately subordi-
nate to the popular will. If the commune were able to organize itself
and assert its authority over political decisions made in the city, it
would constitute a political force that would be in a position to break
the monopoly of the oligarchic magistracy.
The difficulty for the citizens of constituting themselves as a com-
mune that could exert political influence lay in the fact that no institu-
tion or procedure existed in Augsburg through which they could act in
a political capacity as citizens. While the commune may have existed
in theory, there was no occasion in Augsburgs political life where it
manifested itself or expressed its will. Political participation was always
expressed in the guilds. Therefore, when the commune attempted to
constitute itself and make its concerns known, it was seen as a threat-
ening or illegal force, since such displays had no sanctioned place in
Augsburg political life.
The protests against the dismissal of Johann Schilling ought to be
seen in this light. The massive protests outside the city hall demanding
the return of Schilling were an attempt to gather the commune as the
fraternity of the common man and bring its influence to bear on a mat-
ter of concern to its membership. According to Rogge, in the Schilling
affairthe first (and last) great manifestation of the conjunction of the
fraternity of the common man and the civic communebrotherly
(fraternal) unity was the prevailing value of those congregated. As the
weaver Hans Pflam declared on the square in front of the city hall, We
all want to stick together like brothers.95 Similarly, the bakers servant
95
Wir wllen all bei ainander beleiben, wie bruder (from the interrogation
records of Ambras Mller and Melchior Schneider of August 6, 1524, 2r [StAA
Urgichten K3 15231525]).
Jorg Vischer declared, Dear brothers, lets all stick together in what
pertains to the Gospel.96 Since there was no accepted way for this sort
of fraternal petition to take place, this expression appeared to the mag-
istracy as a form of revolt or uprising. Further, when the gathering
disbanded, the participants had no established forms of association
that would allow them to continue their pressure on the council. Their
influence became diffuse, and the council swiftly moved to extirpate
the movement.
This background helps to elucidate Michael Kellers congregation
and his espousal of a communal ideology in his Eucharistic service.
There is specific, albeit biased, evidence that Kellers appeal was very
strong among guild members (whether or not it was equally strong
with the unenfranchised crowds is not clear). Gereon Sailer, Augsburg
physician, confidant of the city council, and inveterate enemy of
Michael Keller, writes to Martin Bucer on October 4, 1531, The major-
ity of the stupid guild members hang on that man.97
Guild members would have felt a natural affinity for Kellers congre-
gation. It had many of the appealing characteristics of a traditional fra-
ternal organization. It was a community of limited size that, in the
communal meal, celebrated and encouraged communal bonds and
group solidarity, as articulated through the concept of brotherly love.
Thus, at Kellers Franciscan church, members would have viewed the
Eucharistic meals point of reference in a fraternal context. The focus of
the meal was the select group who came together for mutual support
and for the promotion of common interests. The message of unity and
solidarity articulated in Kellers Eucharistic theology would have con-
trasted strongly with many guild members experience of division and
self-interest within their organizations.
Further, it would not be far-fetched to suggest that Keller was per-
ceived by his congregants as a rough equivalent of a guild master or
guild representative to the city council. They would have expected
their leader to represent their interests to the government and to
96
Item Jorg Vischer Bekenknecht, gesagt lieben bruder beleiben beiainannder was
das Ewangelium antrifft (see the interrogation records of Ambres Mller and Melchior
Schnieder, 4r).
97
Quoted in Martijn de Kroon, Die Augsburger Reformation in der Korrespondenz
des Straburger Reformators Martin Bucer unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der
Briefwechsels Gereon Sailers (hereafter de Kroon, Reformation), in Die Augsburger
Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed. Reinhard Schwarz, Schriften des Vereins
fr Reformationsgeschichte (Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1988), 69, n. 40.
244 chapter five
produce results. It is this context that explains Kellers political activi-

ties. Keller was famously (or notoriously) known as Augsburgs most
highly politicized preacher. He cultivated cozy relationships with the
citys rulers, was known to support certain council members from the
pulpit, and was rumored to have determined the course of city council
elections. Sailer sums up the view of Kellers opponents, writing to
Bucer on June 7, 1534: Michael wants to hold political authority him-
self.98 Sailers bitterness aside, as long as the members of Kellers con-
gregation remained convinced that Keller was an effective and
responsive representative of their interests at the highest levels of civic
government, his continued popularity was assured.
Surely, however, some saw in Michael Kellers congregation with its
particular Eucharistic theology much more than one fraternal organi-
zation among many. Unlike most fraternal organizations, which had
naturally or artificially imposed limits on membership, the Franciscan
church was an expansive institution. Through his Eucharistic treatises,
Keller asserted the truly fraternal nature of his Christian congregation,
and he implicitly bid his fellow Augsburgers come. The large Franciscan
hall church, with a capacity to hold over 2,000 listeners, also provided
a venue suitable for sizable gatherings.
It is already clear that the fraternity of the common man, which its
proponents identified with the civic commune, lacked institutional
stability or legitimacy. However, under Keller, the fraternity of the
common man acquired an institution and ideological support. Already
during the Schilling affair, the Franciscan church had become a focal
point for people attempting to instantiate this idea. It will be recalled
from chapter two that the Franciscan church had a dual identity in
Augsburg. It functioned as a quasi-parish church, but also as the
church for the whole civic community. Both of these identities were
operative when Keller articulated his Eucharistic message. The
Franciscan church was a location where members of different guilds,
as well as the disenfranchised and some of the ruling elite, could gather
and in the Eucharistic meal declare themselves a single fraternity, a
single commune (perhaps the commune) with shared interests.99
98
Michael vellet se habere regnum (de Kroon, Reformation, 74).
99
Terpstra argues rightly that many of the seemingly new forms of association de-
veloped in the Protestant Church are nothing less than adaptations of the cultural form
of the fraternity (Terpstra, Ignatius, 167171).
But, true to form, Keller had tamed the explosive potential of this
movement to dissolve, at least ideologically, individual competing fra-
ternities into a single fraternal interest group and identify it with the
political idea of the urban commune. During the Schilling affair, the
ideas of fraternity and political legitimacy mixed in a dangerous and
unpredictable way. Real political influence and the prospect of eco-
nomic change, in addition to religious reform, seemed to be within
reach. Keller offered the possibility of an institutionalized, city-wide
fraternity of the common man, complete with fraternal unity and soli-
darity, and with influence in the city government. It will not be forgot-
ten, however, that Kellers salary was paid by the city council, and that
he assiduously avoided contentious economic and social issues.
Questions of whether and to what extent this fraternal organization
represented the urban commune and whether it was therefore the
source of political legitimacy faded into the background. Keller never
repeated the words of his predecessor Schilling, who, referring to both
the city commune and his congregation, declared, When a city coun-
cil does not act, then the commune must. Keller focused on issues of
legitimacy primarily in the religious realm, with his attacks on the
Catholics and the Lutherans. While a latent sense of potential power
and legitimacy may have persisted, Keller did not explicitly work to see
its development.
Zwinglianism, Communalism, and the South German Reformation
Finally, in light of what has been said above, I shall address the issue of
whether a Zwingli-oriented theology held more appeal to urban resi-
dents with a communal mentality than did a Luther-oriented theology.
As I mentioned above, Moeller argued that Zwinglis theology was par-
ticularly attractive to the communal-minded South-German cities
because Zwingli advocated the intertwining of the religious and tem-
poral spheres. As I have indicated, I believe this view to be flawed
because it presumes that the point of reference for all communal reli-
gious expression is the entire civic commune. Heinz Schilling, among
others, has argued that communalism was not exclusive to southern
Germany. Rather, it was a common phenomenon in the cities of north-
ern Germany, in particularbut not limited tothose in the Hanseatic
League. The fact that the northern cities where a communal political
ideology (or, as he prefers to call it, republicanism) predominated
246 chapter five
accepted Lutheranism or remained Catholic is an indication for

Schilling that Zwinglianism had no particular claim on cities oriented
around a communal ideology. He argues that the experience of the
north demonstrates that Lutheran as well as Catholic theology fit very
well with urban communalism. Although Peter Blickle and most
scholars that agree with him can make the case that in hindsight
Zwinglis theology harmonized better with the communal ideal than
Luthers, reformers of the 1520s and 1530s showed no awareness of this
fact. Further, Schilling notes that Luthers influence was actually quite
pervasive in the purportedly highly communalist south. This is yet
another indication that no distinction was made in the 1520s and
1530s between Lutheranism and Zwinglianism regarding their relative
support for communal values.100 Moeller himself in his 1987 edition
of Reichsstadt und Reformation altered his view regarding the particu-
lar suitability of Zwinglian theology for cities with a communal tradi-
tion. Convinced by the communalism of north German Lutheran
and Catholic cities, he maintained that we must give up or limit the
conclusion that the Zwinglian Reformation distinguished itself from
the Lutheran in the common civic understanding of the church and
the Christian life.101 However, if Moeller had placed more emphasis on
the communal aspects of the Lutheran and Zwinglian Eucharistic cel-
ebrations and not on their respective views regarding the relationship
between church and state (thus falling into a set of functionalist
assumptions), he might not have been so quick to backtrack on the
broad outlines of his theory.
Schillings formulation of these issues presents a major challenge to
my study, which has argued that Michael Keller was able to beat out his
100
For a summary of Schillings critiques of Moellers thesis, see The Communal
Reformation in Germany: An Upper German, Zwinglian Phenomenon before the
Turning Point of the Reformation in 1525? and Schilling, Republicanism, in
Schilling, Religion. R. Po-Chia Hsia concurs with this assessment in The Myth of the
Commune: Recent Historiography on City and Reformation in Germany, Central
European History (Symposium: Reformation and Revolution: From the Sacral
Community to the Common Man) 20, 34 (SeptemberDecember 1987): 207209. He
argues that not only was civic communalism as strong in north German cities as in
Southern ones, but that Lutheranism could serve the same ideological function as
Zwinglianism in unifying the civic and spiritual realms within the city. In the same
volume, Thomas Brady demurs, maintaining in his contribution From the Sacral
Community to the Common Man: Reflections on German Reformation Studies that
the argument for a strong tradition of communalism in the north is not convincing.
Communalism in the north was an odd growth (240).
101
Moeller, Reichsstadt, 9193.
Lutheran opponents for the support of the people of Augsburg in large

part because of his communal, or Zwinglian, Eucharistic celebration. It
will be necessary to answer Schillings views directly. To begin, as indi-
cated above, not all have accepted the conclusion that communalism
was as prevalent in the north as in the south. If this criticism were to
prove correct, then the adoption of Lutheranism in the north could no
longer serve as evidence for the compatibility of Lutheranism with
communalism. Nevertheless, so as not to be dragged into a very knotty
historical debate, this discussion shall presume, for the sake of argu-
ment, that Schillings characterization is essentially correct.
Regarding the assertion that Lutheranism permeated the South-
German region, my study has certainly confirmed that view. Lutheran-
oriented theology was well represented in Augsburg. It was preached
by the most learned clergy in Augsburg, disseminated in large num-
bers of books published in the city, and had the support of many on the
city council and in the upper echelons of society; it also failed to
develop a significant following. The familiarity of Augsburgers with
Luthers theology buttresses rather than weakens my position. As the
writings of Eitelhans Langenmantel demonstrate, the laity was well
aware of Luthers Eucharistic theology, and the majority of Evangelicals
rejected it.102 My argument throughout has been that Kellers Zwinglian-
based theology resonated with a whole series of opinions held by many
laity, not least of which was a fraternal or communalist understanding
of society.
Further, although Schilling mentions the encroachment of Lutheran
theology in South Germany, the reverse cannot be said to be true for
the north. No committed advocates of Zwinglian theology were estab-
lished in the cities of northern Germany during the first decades of the
Reformation, and no northern city council ever considered a Zwinglian
Reformation to be a viable option. These cities were situated directly in
a sphere of Lutheran influence. An early Zwinglian reformation in this
region would have been as unlikely as an early Lutheran reformation in
102
The continued appeal of Catholicism is much harder to gauge. Catholic services
continued to be held through 1537, although in 1534 the city council decided by
a wide margin to prohibit Catholic preaching and restrict the mass to the seven
Episcopal churches in the city. It is difficult, however, to assess the attendance levels at
these churches. Herbert Immenktter, noting that in 1535 only the butchers guild
took part in the Corpus Christi procession inside the cathedral, maintains that by this
point only a small, but often powerful, minority retained the old faith (Immenktter,
Kirche, 14).
248 chapter five
the region under Zwinglian influenceroughly a swath extending

north-eastward from Zurich up to about Memmingen.
In comparing the Eucharistic treatises of Luther and Keller, I did not
argue that one could not extract a communal ideology from Luthers
theology. Rather, I claimed that when both Eucharistic theologies were
presented as an option to an audience with a communal outlook, all
other things being equal, that audience was attracted to a Zwinglian
memorial meal.103 The fact that north German communally oriented
cities adopted Lutheranism does not prove that it was as suitable in
that context as Zwinglianism, but only that ideologies are flexible and
that the north German cities were able to adapt Lutheranism, the only
viable option, to their particular socio/political structure.
Augsburg was not firmly in either the Zwinglian or Lutheran circles
of influence. Instead, it was a hotly contested city, with both Zwingli
and Luther seeking to support their partisans, inject themselves into
the debate, and influence the direction of the city council. Furthermore,
the city council, although in its majority supportive of religious reform,
was highly reluctant to disrupt either its carefully cultivated relation-
ship with the Hapsburg dynasty or its trade routes and relationships.
It therefore became practically paralyzed in the matters of religious
103
Susan Karant-Nunn has argued that the other Protestant sacrament, baptism,
was performed differently in the Lutheran north than in the communal south ( Suffer
the Little Children to come unto me, and Forbid them not: The Social Location of
Baptism in Early Modern Germany, in Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late
Medieval and Reformation History. Essays Presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 70th
Birthday, eds. Robert J. Bast and Andrew C. Gow [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 359378). The
Lutheran ritual, at least into the second half of the sixteenth century, perpetuated
the medieval tendency to downplay the communal component of the ritual whereby
the baptisant was incorporated into the Christian community. In the Middle Ages, the
baptism was a private ceremony in which were embodied the hopes of the family that
the child would be protected in this life by God and patrons, and would be qualified to
enter heaven after death (360361). Luther was concerned almost exclusively with the
cleansing of the individual soul from the stain of Adam, although, since his ritual con-
tinued the use of godparents, it preserved most of the ceremonys older associations
with kinship and family networks. In contrast, baptismal ceremonies from Zurich,
Basel, and Strasbourg emphasize the relationship of the child to the community.
Baptisms ceased to be private affairs and instead took place during congregational
worship services. During the baptismal ceremony, the minister would declare that the
child was thereby being received into the Christian community (364367). Karant-
Nunn is persuaded that a connection exists between southwest Germanys baptismal
rituals and its communal political traditions. Whether, as was the case with the
Eucharist, the Zwinglian/Strasbourgian baptismal ceremonies constituted a source of
that traditions appeal over against a Lutheran approach is a matter that deserves fur-
ther investigation.
reform throughout the 1520s. To have sided either with the Lutherans
or the Zwinglians would have involved an explicit endorsement of the
Protestant cause, the very thing that it was eager to avoid doing.
Therefore, it looked on, helpless, as the debate raged in the city.
These three factors: that Augsburg lay outside both Luthers and
Zwinglis direct circle of influence, that both points of view were vigor-
ously represented by partisans in the city, and that the city council
stood apart from the debate, allowing people throughout the 1520s to
come to their own decisions about which religious program to sup-
port, make Augsburg an ideal test case for the relative appeal of
Lutheran and Zwinglian theologies, especially with regard to the
Eucharist, in a city with strong communal traditions. When the people
of Augsburg had explained to them the relevance to their concerns of
a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, a significant majority of
them attached themselves to Kellers Zwinglian-inspired church. In an
open contest with a Zwinglian Eucharistic theology for the allegiance
of the communally-minded residents of Augsburg, Lutheranism sim-
ply was unable to compete.
CONCLUSION
On one level this study has explored a local historical phenomenon.

Ithas reconstructed the story of Michael Kellers success in building
his congregation at the Franciscan church into the largest and most
influential in Augsburg. Keller was an effective preacher who proved
successful in winning the support of Evangelicals and traditionalists
alike. He tailored his message to appeal to disaffected elements in
thecity, adopting components of their positions while draining them
of their revolutionary or anti-institutional content. Although critical
of hierarchy and mediation, he never questioned the fundamental
political or economic realities of the city and never cast doubt on the
basic structure of the institutional civic church. Although prone to
occasional incendiary acts and statements, he used them cautiously,
preferring to work through intermediaries or to deny the significance
of his undertakings. In sum, he developed a remarkable rapport with
his more radical supporters without alienating his other conservative
and establishmentarian constituencies, especially the members of the
city council.
Although he was able to draw to himself many of the people who
had been attracted by the radical teachings circulating within Schillings
congregation and among the sectarian groups, others were not satis-
fied by his approach. In the aftermath of the Schilling affair and the
Peasants War they realized that a fundamental transformation of soci-
ety was impossible. However, rather than make the ideological com-
promises necessary to join Kellers congregation, many of them
withdrew from society entirely. They created within the confines of the
sect the sort of egalitarian socio-ecclesiastical commune that they were
unable to realize on a larger scale. Partially due to pressure from Kellers
successful preaching, these groups ultimately merged into the bur-
geoning Anabaptist movement. This study uncovers the factors that
led sectarian groups to exchange the Lords Supper for believers bap-
tism as the primary ritual through which they expressed their identity
vis--vis the larger society.
The essence of Kellers appeal lay in his teaching on the Eucharist.
For Schilling, the sectarian groups, and Keller, the discussion about the
nature of Christs presence in the Eucharist became a way of furthering
252 conclusion
their positions on a series of religious, political, and economic issues of

concern to the citizens of Augsburg. With Schilling and the sectarians
the full range of associations were inscribed onto the celebration.
Keller, for his part, sought to limit the significance of his Eucharistic
theology largely to the religious and cultural sphere. Nevertheless, all
the proponents of a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist shared
some fundamental convictions about the proper structuring of rela-
tionships among humans and between humans and the divine.
Keller, Schilling, and the sectarians advanced a Eucharistic theology
that worked to dissolve the hierarchical order within the church, and
thus to undermine clerical power over the religious lives of the laity.
For these figures, a symbolic Eucharistic theology guaranteed that the
laity would have equal dignity with the clergy, direct access to God
unmediated by a priest, and the same spiritual authority as the clergy.
If there were no localized presence of Christ in the elements, they
argued, then the priest could not claim the special power of consecra-
tion that exalted him above the lay estate. Neither could he control the
laitys access to the unique divine presence inhering in the elements,
thus functioning as a gatekeeper between them and God.
The converse side of a rejection of clerical power and the holy host
is the emphasis on community. Schillings radish meal with his com-
panions on the guild hall roof stands in stark contrast to the Corpus
Christi procession, at whose center lay the consecrated host radiating
power. Keller, the sectarians, and perhaps also Schilling maintained
that a theology positing a unique presence of Christ in the Eucharist
acted to highlight the individual relationship between human and
divine, and thereby to submerge the communal elements of the meal.
They hoped that by rejecting this unique presence, the congregation
would thereby focus on affirming the bonds of mutual support and
affection rather than on receiving a personal gift from God in the meal.
By desacralizing the elements, they intended to sacralize the commu-
nity. Further, eliminating the elevated status of the priest served to
emphasize brotherhood and equality within the congregation. Finally,
denying the existence of a holy object within the community had the
effect of removing a source of competition among members and of
eliminating the possibility that the powerful members of the commu-
nity would attempt to commandeer the holy object to enhance their
status and thus undermine communal unity and solidarity.
In all three cases, this communal, anti-hierarchical, Eucharistic the-
ology appealed to the fraternal mentality of the residents of Augsburg.
conclusion 253
They gravitated to an institution that promoted equality, mutual sup-

port, and brotherly love among its membership. Especially during a
time when the citys principal fraternal institution, the guild, was under
assault, an alternative, whether in the Franciscan church or in a sect,
was an attractive option to many.
Schilling, Keller, their supporters, and many of the sectarians firmly
believed that the transformation of the spiritual relationship between
laity and clergy effected by a symbolic theology of the Eucharist would
have implications in the economic and political arenas insofar as the
clergy had used their spiritual authority and power to gain an advan-
tage for themselves in the secular realm. This study has documented a
widespread conviction that the clergy had developed the doctrine of
the Real Presence in order to extract money from the credulous laity.
According to this belief, the clergy had not only obtained money from
the laity in exchange for useless endowed masses, but they also had
argued that their power of consecration conferred upon them a spirit-
ual status entitling them to a wide array of political and economic
exemptions. Living in the city and benefiting from its protection, the
priesthood nevertheless claimed exemption from civil jurisdiction,
certain taxes, and many civic duties. A symbolic understanding of the
Eucharist eliminated the basis upon which the clergy demanded spe-
cial treatment and led to their submission to civil jurisdiction and their
full integration into the city. The city would finally be able to bring to
completion a secularization process that had been unfolding since the
fourteenth century.
The most controversial contention of this study is that this egalitar-
ian, anti-hierarchical, Eucharistic theology that naturally applied to
the relationship of the clergy to the laity also, in the minds of many
laity, stood for the same principles with reference to the secular politi-
cal and economic hierarchies of the city. Their ability to express their
opposition to the citys dominant political and economic models
through their articulation of a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist
formed an important explanation for the appeal of this position.
It ought not to be unexpected that this study finds people in
Augsburg embracing a religious ideology that corresponded to and
affirmed their political and economic ideologies. Especially in the
Schilling affair, a Eucharistic theology that emphasized community
and direct access to God mixed with an economic theory that advo-
cated an end to merchant firms so that artisans could enjoy direct
access to markets. Further, it was conjoined to a political ideology that
254 conclusion
demanded the re-empowerment of community, whether fraternal

or civic, vis--vis the magistracy. In the Franciscan church a fraternal
ideology mixed in combustible ways with the construct of the civic
commune to create a vehicle for potentially revolutionary change. Sup-
porters of this comprehensive program believed that elites in every
arenareligious, economic, and politicalexploited their power to
secure ill-gotten benefits and prestige for themselves.
Many, indeed, saw these three hierarchies within the city as inter-
twining and mutually reinforcing. An agitator from the Schilling affair
believed that the council, the merchants, and the priests were in league
with each other to deny the common man anything that might benefit
him. For a time in 1525, and later after 1526, Urbanus Rhegius became
the spokesman for a real-presence theology in Augsburg. By his close
association with the wealthy and powerful in the city and apparent dis-
regard for the common man, Rhegius helped perpetuate the percep-
tion that his theology was intended to buttress the authority of other
elites within the city. Moreover, at stake for many was the principle
of hierarchy in general. By condemning through their symbolic
Eucharistic theology the hierarchical and mediational arrangement of
the spiritual order, they were striking a symbolic blow to the same
organizing principle in secular arenas as well. The symbolic, heavily
textured, and referentially open quality of the Eucharist permitted it to
carry this heavy representational burden. The example of Hans Speiser,
for whom a refusal to receive communion in both kinds was conjoined
with a justification of his political and economic program, is instruc-
tive. Eucharistic theology was for him, as for others, able to function as
a language with which to speak about a series of related issues.
Michael Keller tried to reduce the scope of Eucharistic discourse
largely to the spiritual realm. At least officially, he intended it to refer to
economic and political issues only insofar as undermining clerical
authority collapsed the foundation upon which they built their claim
to political and economic privilege. Nevertheless, as we have suggested,
the symbolic Eucharistic theology continued to have resonance beyond
that. It spoke representationally to broader issues of power, hierarchy,
mediation, and dominance, and it is unlikely that the canny Keller was
unaware of this. Most particularly, the fraternal ideal, which in
Augsburg stood in opposition to a magisterial ideology, continued to
be promoted in the Franciscan church through Kellers teaching on the
Eucharist. Because of long-term associations of that church with the
civic community, and because of its connection to the Schilling affair,
conclusion 255
in which Hans Schilling seemed to identify his church with the com-
mune, the Franciscan churchs fraternal commune acquired an air of
political authority that could not have been associated with other reli-
gious congregations. Keller was always careful to ensure, however, that
these broader associations remained largely implicit and submerged.
Many people were satisfied to belong to a congregation in which
spiritual elites were criticized explicitly and secular elites were criti-
cized only symbolically. However, others would only be content with a
more explicit condemnation of the whole social structure. Sectarians
employed their Eucharistic theology to declare their thoroughgoing
rejection of the social order and the remaining clericalism of the citys
religious institutions. In their Eucharistic meal, they constituted their
holy and egalitarian sectarian community. They thereby condemned
the citys political and religious system absolutely.
This study has explored the local conditions that made a symbolic
interpretation of the Eucharist attractive to many of Augsburgs resi-
dents. Historians have often made general assertions about the appeal
of a Zwinglian sacramental theology to the German cities. This is the
first study to give a detailed picture of a local civic environment and
then to uncover the factors that gave such a theology resonance in that
particular place and time. Some of these factorsthe traditionally
guild-based political structure, the prominence of powerful merchant
firms, the tense relationship between city and cathedral, the existence
of a church that in some ways represented the civic communecannot
be found in every city whose population embraced a similar Eucharistic
theology.
Nevertheless, the results of this study have broad implications
beyond the walls of Augsburg. While local conditions varied from city
to city, and the mechanisms of the messages dissemination depended
upon historical contingencies, cities across southern Germany in the
early sixteenth century were all affected by similar forces effecting
structural change at the political and economic level. A rising sense
among the laity of their dignity and prerogative in spiritual matters
was a widespread phenomenon in Western Europe, and particularly
within the imperial free cities. Finally, a degree of ambivalence about
the mediational power of the clergy was a condition that had been
endemic to medieval Christendom for centuries. Many of the condi-
tions that increased the appeal of a symbolic Eucharistic theology in
Augsburg prevailed in imperial free cities across southern Germany,
even if they often manifested themselves in slightly different ways.
256 conclusion
Ironically, it is one of Augsburgs historical particularitiesits power-

ful trading firms whose economic viability rested on the continued
goodwill of the Hapsburg dynastythat allows me to claim broader
applicability of this studys conclusions than would be possible with
perhaps any other city in the empire. Because the city council was
unwilling to appear supportive of religious change in the city, it usually
refused to intervene in the citys religious disputes. The city hired both
Lutheran and Zwinglian pastors and let the residents of Augsburg
decide whom to support. Although the council was concerned about
the strife that erupted as a result, it did not decide to genuinely inter-
vene until after 1530. This level of detachment allowed the people to
take a position on the Eucharist largely without government coercion
(the case of Haug Marschalck being the exception). Under these cir-
cumstances, a clearer picture emerges of lay attitudes towards the
Eucharist than would be possible in cities where the council took a
more active role in determining the religious direction of the city.
WORKS CITED
A. Manuscripts
STADTARCHIV AUGSBURG (StAA)

Acta was sich zu augspurg fr ein auffruhr und wiederwrtigkait zugetragen, wegen
eines barfen Munichs nahmens Johannes Schilling Anno 1524 (EWA 481)
Beschreibung der Aufruer so sich Allhie Im Augspurg wegen eines Mnchs als mann
Nach Christi geburt zelete 1524 Jar den anderen tag Augusti Erhoben (EWA, 480)
Baumeisterbuch 118 [1524]
Chronic von A. 1057 bis 1548 (Chronik 12)
Augsburg Chronik bis 1548 (Chronik 46)
EWA 480
EWA 481
Literaliensammlung
Ratsprotokolle 1520-1529 (microfilm 30)
Urgichten K3 1523-1525
STAATS- UND STADTBIBLIOTHEK AUGSBURG

HANDSCHRIFTENABTEILUNG (SStBA)
Ain seltzamer aufflauf vnd wilde ongewonliche Entbrung, welche sich zwischen ainem
Erbern Rathe vnd gemainde der Stat Augspurg anno 1524, aines Barfuessers Munichs
halben, begeben vnnd zugetragen hat, Erstlich durch Clementen Jgern zusamen
getragen vnnd beschriben, Anno 1532 (4 Th H)
Huberinus, Kaspar. Relationen [Wie die Keiserliche Statt Augspurg erstlich von den
Rottengeistern belegert, endtlich aber durch die Schwermer erobert ist worden
vndt wie es Hernacher in der Kirchen ab Anno 1517 alda zugangen ist] (4 Cod.
Aug. 145).
B. Printed Sources
Blaurer, Ambrosius and Thomas Blaurer. Briefwechsel der Brder Ambrosius und
Thomas Blaurer 1509-1548. Edited by Traugott Schie. Vol. 1, 1509-Juni 1538.
Freiburg: Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1908.
Bucer, Martin. Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften. Edited by Robert Stupperich.
Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960-.
Denck, Hans. Hans Denck, Schriften. Edited by Walter Fellmann. Quellen und
Forschung zur Reformationsgeschichte (Quellen zur Geschichte der Tufer, vol. 4,
pt. 2). Gtersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1956.
. The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts.
Edited and Translated by Clarence Bauman. Studies in Medieval and Reformation
Thought. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991.
. Zum Prozess des Johann Denk und der drei gottlosen Maler von Nrnberg.
Edited by Theodore Kolde. In Kirchengeschichtliche Studien: Hermann Reuter zum
70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by Theodore Brieger et al., 228-250. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1888.
258 works cited
Gasser, Achilles Pirminius. Annales de vetustate originis, amoenitate situs, splendore

aedificorum, ac rebus gestis civium reipublicaeque Augstburgensisper Achillem
Pirminium Gassarum. In Scriptores rerum Germanicarum praecipue Saxonicarum.
Vol. 1. Edited by Johannes Burchard Mencken. Leipzig, 1728.
Germann, W. D. Johann Forster der Hennebergische Reformator, ein Mitarbeiter und
Mitstreiter D. Martin Luthers. N.P. [Erlangen?]: by the author, 1894.
Htzer, Ludwig. Ain kurtze wolgegrndte Aulegung ber die Zehn nachgeenden
Episteln S. Pauli (Khler, Fiche 1835-1837, Nr. 4695).
. Ein Beweisung, da der wahr Messias kommen sei (Khler, Fiche 1765, Nr. 4458).
. Vom Nachtmahl, Beweisung aus evangelischenSchriften, wer die seien, so des
Herren Nachtmahlswort unrecht verstanden (Khler, Fiche 1006, Nr. 2557).
. Von den evangelischen Zechen und von der Christen Red aus heiliger Geschrift
(Khler, Fiche 70, Nr. 185).
. Zween schn Sermon, inhaltend, da man von wegen des Herren Nachtmahls
brderliche Liebe nit soll zertrennen (Khler, Fiche 689, Nr. 1787).
Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolf Bodenstein. Auslegung dieser Worte Christi Das ist mein
Leib, welcher fr eich gegeben wird (Khler, Fiche 1446, Nr. 3833).
. Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523-1525. Part 2. Edited by Erich Hertzsch.
Halle [Saale]: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957.
. Ob man mit heiliger Schrift erweisen mge, da Christus mit Leib, Blut und Seele
im Sakrament sei (Khler, Fiche 48, Nr. 133).
. Von dem widerchristlichen Mibrauch des Herren Brot und Kelch (Khler, Fiche
1949, Nr. 1524).
. Wider die alte und neue papistische Messe (Khler, Fiche 207, Nr. 58).
Keller, Michael. Ain Christlicher / grndtlicher / au Gttlicher hayliger schrifft/ ber-
icht/dess Herren Nachtmal wirdig zu Empfahen / den schwachen vnd guthertzigen
aufs krtzest zusamen bracht. (Khler, Fiche 1655, Nr. 4268).
. Ettlich Sermones von dem Nachtmal Christi / Geprediget durch M.Michaeln /
Keller / Predicanten bey den Parfussern zu Augspurg. (Khler, Fiche 178 / Nr. 493).
. Ettlich Sermones von dem Nachtmal Christi / Geprediget durch M.Michaelen
Keller / Predicanten bey den Parfuessern zu Augspurg. An vil orten so im Ersten
unbuniitruck vbersehen ist Corrigiert / gepesseret vnd gemeeret (Khler, Fiche 993 /
Nr. 2522).
. Ain Schne vnderweysung vnd leer / zubetrachten das Nachtmal vnsers lieben her-
ren Jhesu Christi durch die warhafftige liebe zu got Vnd dem nchsten eingepflantzt /
nach den worten vnd Beuelch Christi / Durch Matheum Frey / Ain sndiger hrt
seiner Schflin (Khler, Fiche 1204, Nr. 3046).
Khler, Hans-Joachim, et al. Flugschriften des Frhen 16. Jahrhunderts [Microfilm].
Zug, Switzerland: Inter Documentation Co., 1978-1987.
Langenmantel, Eitelhans. Ain kurtzer Anzeig, wie Martin Luther hat etliche Schriften
lassen ausgehn vom Sakrament (Khler, Fiche 962, Nr. 2043).
. Ein treue Ermahnung an alle Christen, da sie sich vor falscher Lehr hten
(Khler, Fiche 611, Nr. 1573).
. Di ist ain anzayg: ainem meinem / etwann vertrawten gesellen / ber seyne harte
widerparte / des Sacrament und annders betreffend (Khler, Fiche 1062, Nr. 2678)
Laube, Adolf, ed. Flugschriften der frhen Reformationsbewegung (1518-1524). Vol. 1.
Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Topos Verlag, 1983.
Luther, Martin. D, Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 68 vols. Weimar:
Hermann Bhlaus Nachfolger, 1883-1999.
. The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Edited by John Nicholas Lenker. Vol.
1.2 (The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther. Vol. 10. Minneapolis, 1905).
Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Mller, Linda, ed. Glaubenszeugnisse oberdeutscher Taufgesinnter. Quellen und
Forschung zur Reformationsgeschichte, 20, 1. Leipzig: Heinsius Nachfolger, 1938.
Reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1971.
works cited 259
Mntzer, Thomas. Thomas Mntzer Schriften und Briefe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe.

Edited by Gnther Franz. Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968.
Oecolampadius, Johann. Von Sacrament der Dancksagung. Translated and with a for-
ward by Ludwig Htzer (Khler, Fiche 1746-1749, Nr. 4539).
Preu, Georg. Die Chronik des Augsburger Malers Georg Preu des lteren. 1512-
1516. In Die Chroniken der deutschen Stdte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert).
Vol. 29 (Die Chroniken der schwbischen Stdte: Augsburg. Vol. 6). Edited by Karl
von Hegel. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.
Rem, Wilhelm. Cronica newer geschichten. In Die Chroniken der deutschen Stdte
vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert). Vol. 25 (Die Chroniken der schwbischen Stdte:
Augsburg. Vol. 5). Edited by Karl von Hegel. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1966.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Materia cogitandi de toto missae negotio. Partim ex scripturis sanc-
tis, partim ex priscae Ecclesiae ruinis eruta, conscriptaque ad Iohannem Ramam
Theologum. Edited by Ernst Regius. Vol.1, Opera Urbani Regii latine edita.
Nuremberg: 1562.
. Wider den newen irrsal Doctor Andreas von Karlstadt des Sakraments halben
Warnung (Khler, Fiche 252, Nr. 705).
Schnewyl, Johann. Der Blinden Fhrer bin ich genannt (Fiche 1124, Nr. 1868).
. Wider die unmilde Verdammung (Khler, Fiche 1549, Nr. 4018).
Sender, Clemens. Die Chronik von Clemens Sender von den ltesten Zeiten der Stadt
bis zum Jahre 1536. In Die Chroniken der deutschen Stdte vom 14. bis ins 16.
Jahrhundert. Vol. 23 (Die Chroniken der schwbischen Stdte, Augsburg. Vol. 4).
Edited by Karl von Hegel. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.
Virck, Hans, ed. Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der
Reformation. Vol. 1, 1517-1530. Urkunden und Akten der Stadt Strassburg.
Strasbourg: Karl J. Trbner Verlag, 1882.
Ziegler, Clemens. Ain fast schon bchli: In welchem yderman findet ein hellen vnd
claren verstand / von den leib vnd blut Christi (Khler, Fiche 1915, Nr. 4902)
. Von der waren nyessung beid leibs vnd bluts Christi (Khler, Fiche 1107, Nr.
2824).
Zwingli, Huldreich. Huldreich Zwinglis smtliche Werke. 14 Vols. Edited by Emil Egli
et al. Corpus Reformatorum. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, [1905-1956] 1982.
C. Secondary Works
Adam, Johann. Evangelische Kirchengeschichte der Elsaessischen Territorien bis zur

Franzoesischen Revolution. Strasbourg: J. H. Ed. Heitz, 1928.
Arnold, Martin. Handwerker als theologische Schriftsteller: Studien zu Flugschriften der
frhen Reformation (1523-1525). Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Baert, Patrick. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University
Press, 1998.
Blickle, Peter. From the Communal Reformation to the Reformation of the Common
Man. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998.
Black, Christopher and Pamela Gravestock, eds. Early Modern Confraternities in
Europe and the Americas: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate, 2006.
Bloch, Maurice. Prey into Hunter: The Politics of Religious Experience. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Bhm, Christoph. Die Reichsstadt Augsburg und Kaiser Maximilian I. Sigmaringen:
Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1998.
Bossert, Gustav. Die Reformation in Blaufelden. Bltter fr wrttembergische
Kirchengeschichte 6 (1902): 1-45.
260 works cited
Bossy, John. The Mass as a Social Institution 1200-1700. Past and Present 100 (1983):
29-61.
Bourdillon, M. F. C. and Meyer Fortes. eds. Sacrifice: Proceedings of the Conference on
Sacrifice, Windsor, England, February 23-25, 1979. New York: New York Academic
Press, 1980.
Brady, Thomas A. Jr. Communities, Politics, and Reformation in Early Modern Europe.
Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
. From the Sacral Community to the Common Man: Reflections on German
Reformation Studies. Central European History (Symposium: Reformation and
Revolution: From the Sacral Community to the Common Man) 20, 3-4 (1987):
229-245.
. Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450-1550. Cambridge Studies in Early
Modern History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521. Translated by
James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, [1981] 1985.
. Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1531-1532. Translated by
James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, [1986] 1990.
Broadhead, P.J. Guildsmen, Religious Reform and the Search for the Common Good:
the Role of the Guilds in the Early Reformation in Augsburg. The Historical Journal
39, 3 (1996): 577-597.
Buc, Philippe. The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific
Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Burkert, Walter. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual
and Myth. Translated by Peter Bing. Berkeley: University of California Press, [1972]
1983.
Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991.
Chrisman, Miriam Usher. Conflicting Visions of Reform: German Lay Propaganda
Pamphlets, 1519-1530. Studies in German Histories. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Humanities Press, 1996.
Cuneo, Pia F. Art and Politics in Early Modern Germany: Jrg Breu the Elder and the
Fashoning of Political Identity, ca. 1475-1536. Studies in Medieval and Reformation
Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Davis, Thomas J. The Truth of the Divine Words: Luthers Sermons on the Eucharist,
1521-1528, and the Structure of Eucharistic Meaning. The Sixteenth Century
Journal 30 (1999): 323-342.
Detienne, Marcel. Culinary Practice and the Spirit of Sacrifice. In The Cuisine of
Sacrifice among the Greeks, eds. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant, trans.
Paula Wissing, 1-20. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, [1979] 1986.
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious
Sociology. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, [1912]
1926.
Eubel, Konrad. Geschichte der oberdeutschen (Straburger)Minoriten-Provinz.
Wrzburg: F.X. Bucher Verlag, 1886.
Gibson, Thomas. Sacrifice and Sharing in the Philippine Highlands: Religion and
Society among the Buid of Mindoro. London: The Athlone Press, 1986.
Girard, Ren. Violence and the Sacred. Translated by Patrick Gregory. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, [1972] 1977.
Goeters, J. F. Gerhard. Ludwig Htzer (ca. 1500 bis 1529) Spiritualist und Antitrinitarier:
Eine Randfigur der frhen Tuferbewegung. Quellen und Forschung zur
Reformationgeschichte. Gtersloh: Bertelmann Verlag, 1957.
Gner, Andreas. Weltliche Kirchenhoheit und reichsstdtische Reformation: Die
Augsburger Ratspolitik des milten und mitleren weges 1520-1534. Colloquia
Augustana. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999.
works cited 261
Gottlieb, Gunther, et al. Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg: 2000 Jahre von der Rmerzeit
bis zur Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Konrad Thiss Verlag, 1985.
Guderian, Hans. Die Tufer in Augsburg: Ihre Geschichte und ihr Erbe. Pfaffenhofen:
Ludwig Verlag, 1984.
Haemmerle, Albert, ed. Das Aufnameformular der St. Annenbruderschaft in Augs-
burg vom Jahre 1494. Vierteljahreshefte zur Kunst und Geschichte Augsburgs
4 (1947): 9-12.
. St. Ulrichs-Bruderschaft Augsburg: Mitgliedsverzeichnis 1466-1521. Munich: Self-
Published, 1949.
Hamm, Berndt. Geistbegabte gegen Geistlose: Typen des pneumatologischen An-
tiklerikalismusZur Vielfalt der Luther-Rezeption in der frhen Reforma-
tionsbewegung (vor 1525). In Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern
Europe, eds. Peter Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman, 379-440. Studies in Medieval
and Reformation Thought. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993.
Hsia, R. Po-Chia. The Myth of the Commune: Recent Historiography on City and
Reformation in Germany. Central European History (Symposium: Reformation and
Revolution: From the Sacral Community to the Common Man) 20, 3-4 (1987):
203-215.
Hltze, Gerhard. Der guete Tod: Vom Sterben und Tod in Bruderschaften der Dizese
Augsburg und Altbaierns. Augsburg: Verlag des Vereins fr Augsburger
Bistumsgeschichte e.V., 1999.
Huburt, Henri and Marcel Mauss. Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function. London: Cohen
and West, [1899] 1964.
Hughes, John Jay. Stewards of the Lord: A Reappraisal of the Anglican Orders. London:
Sheed and Ward, 1970.
Immenktter, Herbert. Die katholiche Kirche in Augsburg in der ersten Hlfte des
16. Jahrhunderts. In Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed.
Reinhard Schwarz, 9-32. Schriften des Vereins fr Reformationsgeschichte.
Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1988.
James, Mervyn. Ritual Drama and Social Body in the Late Medieval English Town.
Past and Present 98 (1983): 3-29.
Jesse, Horst. Die evangelische Kirche Zu den Barfern in Augsburg. Pfaffenhofen:
W. Ludwig Verlag, 1982.
. Die Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche in Augsburg. Pfaffenhofen: W. Ludwig
Verlag, 1983.
Jungmann, Joseph A., S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development.
Vol. 1. Translated by Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R. Westminster, MA: Christian
Classics Inc., [1949] 1986.
Kapferer, Bruce. The Feast of the Sorcerer: Practices of Consciousness and Power.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Karant-Nunn, Susan C. The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern
Germany. Christianity and Society in the Modern World. London and New York:
Routledge, 1997.
. Suffer the Little Children to Come unto Me, and Forbid them Not: The Social
Location of Baptism in Early Modern Germany. In Continuity and Change: The
Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History. Essays Presented to Heiko
A. Oberman on his 70th Birthday, eds. Robert J. Bast and Andrew C. Gow, 359-378.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.
Kaufmann, Thomas. Das Abendmahlstheologie der Straburger Reformatoren bis 1528.
Beitrge zur historischen Theologie. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992.
Kieling, Rolf. Brgerliche Gesellschaft und Kirche in Augsburg im 14. und 15.
Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse der sptmittelalterlichen Stadt. Ab-
handlung zur Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg. Augsburg: Verlag Hieronymus
Mhlberger, 1971.
262 works cited
Khler, Hans-Joachim. Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts. Vols. 1-3.
Tbingen: Bibliotheca Academica Verlag, 1991-1996.
Khler, Walther. Zwingli und Luther: Ihr Streit ber das Abendmahl nach seinen
politischen und religisen Beziehungen. Vol. 1, Die religise und politische Entwicklung
bis zum Marburger Religionsgesprch 1529. Quellen und Forschung zur Reforma-
tionsgeschichte. Leipzig: Verein fr Reformationsgeschichte, 1924
Kolde, Theodore. Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Nrnberg. Beitrge zur
bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 8 (1902): 1-30, 49-72.
Koziol, Geoffrey. The Dangers of Polemic: Is Ritual Still an Interesting Topic of
Historical Study? Early Medieval Europe 2,4 (2002): 367-388.
Kraus, Andreas, ed. Handbuch der bayerischen Geschichte. Vol. 2, Von der Frhzeit bis
zum 18. Jahrhunderts. Munich: C.H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1988.
de Kroon, Martijn. Die Augsburger Reformation in der Korrespondenz des Straburg-
er Reformators Martin Bucer unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Briefwechsels
Gereon Sailers. In Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfeld, ed.
Reinhard Schwarz, 59-90. Schriften des Vereins fr Reformationsgeschichte.
Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1988.
Layton, Robert. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Liebmann, Maximilian. Urbanus Rhegius und die Anfnge der Reformation: Beitrge
zu seimem Leben, seiner Lehre und seinem Wirken bis zum Augsburger Reichstag von
1530 mit einer Bibliographie seiner Schriften. Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien
und Texte. Mnster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1979.
Lienhardt, Gotfrey. Divinity and Experience: Religion and the Dinka. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1961.
Maurer, Justus. Prediger im Bauernkrieg. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1979.
Moeller, Berndt. Reichstadt und Reformation: bearbeitete Neuausgabe. Berlin:
Evangelische Verlag, [1962] 1987.
Muir, Edwin. Ritual in Early Modern Society. New Approaches to European History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Munro, John H. Patterns of Trade, Money, and Credit. In Handbook of European
History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. Vol. 1, Struc-
tures and Assertions, eds. Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D.
Tracy, 147-195. Grand Rapids MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1994.
Nyhus, Paul H. The Franciscans in South Germany, 1400-1530: Reform and Revolution.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series. Vol. 65, pt. 8.
Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1975.
Oberman, Heiko A. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval
Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, [1966] 1981.
Pagden, Anthony. History and Anthropology, and a History of Anthropology:
Considerations on a Methodological Practice. In Imagining Culture: Essays in Early
Modern History and Literature, ed. Jonathan Hart, 27-40. Comparative Literature
and Cultural Studies. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1996.
Preus, James S. Carlstadts Ordinaciones and Luthers Liberty: A Study of the Wittenberg
Movement 1521-1522. Harvard Theological Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Quere, Ralph W. Changes and Constants: Structure in Luthers Understanding of the
Real Presence in the 1520s. The Sixteenth Century Journal 16,1 (1985): 45-78.
Reifenberg, Hermann. Sakramente, Sakramentalien und Ritualen im Bistum Mainz seit
dem Sptmittelalter. Vol 1, Bis 1671. (Mainz-rmischer Ritus). Mnster: Aschen-
dorffsche Buchdruckerei, 1971.
Rogge, Jrg. Fr den Gemeinen Ntzen: Politisches Handeln und Politikverstndnis
vom Rat und Burgerschaft in Augsburg im Sptmittelalter. Studia Augustana.
Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996.
works cited 263
Roper, Lyndal. The Holy Household: Women and Morals in Reformation Augsburg.
Oxford Studies in Social History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Roth, Friedrich. Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte. Vol. 1, 1517-1530. Munich:
Theodor Ackermann, 1901.
. Wer war Haug Marschalck, genannt Zoller von Augsburg? Beitrge zur bayer-
ischen Kirchengeschichte 6 (1900): 229-234.
. Zur Geschichte der Widertufer in Oberschwaben. II. Zur Lebensgeschichte
EitelEitelhans Langenmantels von Augsburg. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins
fr Schwaben und Neuberg 27 (1900): 1-45.
. Zur Lebensgeschichte des Meisters Michael Keller, Prdikanten in Augsburg.
Beitrage zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 5 (1899): 149-163.
Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
. Gentile Tales: The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews. New Haven: Yale
Schilling, Heinz. Religion, Political Culture and the Emergence of Early Modern Society:
Essays in German and Dutch History. Studies in Medieval and Reformation
Thought. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992.
Schrder, Alfred. Die Vikarierbruderschaft bei St. Moritz, ihre Grndung, Verfassung
und ihr ltestes Anniversarienbuch. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins fr
Schwaben und Neuburg 9 (1892): 88-110.
Scribner, Bob. Communalism: Universal Category or Ideological Construct? a
Debate in the Historiography of Early Modern Germany and Switzerland. The
Historical Journal 37, 1 (1994): 199-207.
. Communities and the Nature of Power. In Germany: A New Social and
Economic History. Vol. 1, 1450-1630, ed. Bob Scribner, 291-325. London: Arnold,
1996.
Sea, Thomas S. Schwbischer Bund und Bauernkrieg: Bestraffung und Pazifikation.
In Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg 1524-1526, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler, 129-167.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.
Seeba, Gottfried. Mntzers Erbe: Werk, Leben und Theologie des Hans Hut. Quellen
und Forschung zur Reformationsgeschichte. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus,
2002.
Sieh-Burns, Katarina. Oligarchie, Konfession und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert: Zur sozi-
alen Verflechtung der Augsburger Brgermeister und Stadtpfleger 1518-1618.
Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultten der Universitt Augsburg. Munich: Ernst
Vgel, 1986.
Smith, Robertson W. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. London: A. and C. Black,
[1889] 1927.
Terpstra, Nicholas. Ignatius, Confratello: Confraternities as Modes of Spiritual
Community in Early Modern Society. In Early Modern Catholicism: Essays in
Honor of John W. OMalley, S.J., eds. Kathleen M Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel,
163-182. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Tyler, Jeffery J. Lord of the Sacred City: The Episcopus Exclusus in Late Medieval and
Early Modern Germany. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought. Leiden:
Brill, 1999.
Valeri, Valerio. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. Translated
by Paula Wissing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Vernant, Jean-Pierre. A General Theory of Sacrifice and the Slaying of Victims in the
Greek Thusia [1981]. In Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays, ed. Froma I.
Zeitlin, 290-302. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Vogt, Wilhelm. Johann Schilling der Barfsser-Mnch und der Aufstand in Augsburg
im Jahre 1524. Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins fr Schwaben und Neuburg 6
(1879): 1-32.
264 works cited
Wagner, Emil. Die Reichsstadt Schwbisch Gmnd in den Jahren 1523-1525. Wrt-
tembergerische Vierteljahrsheft fr Landesgeschichte 2 (1879): 26-33.
Wandel, Lee Palmer. The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Zika, Charles. Hosts, Processions and Pilgrimages: Controlling the Sacred in
Fifteenth-Century Germany. Past and Present 118 (1988): 25-64.
Zorn, Wolfgang. Augsburg: Geschichte einer deutschen Stadt. Augsburg: Hieronymus
Mhlberger Verlag, 1972.
. Michael Keller (vor 1500-1548). In Lebensbilder aus dem Bayerischen
Schwaben. Vol. 7, ed. Gtz Freiherrn von Plnitz, 161-172. Munich: Max Hueber
Verlag, 1959.
Zschoch, Hellmut. Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle Identitt: Urbanus
Rhegius als evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530. Beitrge zur
Historischen Theologie. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Anti-clericalism, 2425, 123125 Guilds, 4, 89, 18n, 63, 68, 69, 7273, 74,
Anti-sacerdotalism, 123, 125130 109, 139, 155, 156, 225, 230244,
Artisans, 2, 4, 7, 8, 23, 43, 5658, 251, 247n, 252253, 255
233241, 253
Hapsburg, House of, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15,
Benedictines, 23 16, 21
Bishop of Augsburg, 710, 23, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 43, 45, 46, 78, 232 Jakobervorstadt (Vorstadt) 43, 45,
Butchers, 247n 157
Jews, 14, 36, 84, 92
Carmelites, 26, 27, 29, 44, 137
Carpenters, 235 Large Council, 8, 21, 74, 233, 235
Canons, Augsburg, 22, 25, 30, 50, 55 Luke, Gospel according to, 5860, 102,
Ciborium, 63, 6567, 103, 105, 127, 103n, 194
136, 190
City Council, 4, 7, 9, 1623, 25, 27, 28, Marburg Colloquy, 42
30, 31, 44, 45, 48, 51, 5253, 5558, Mass, 6, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 34, 36, 44, 46,
61, 62, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 47, 66, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 106, 109,
88, 89, 98n, 101, 118n, 130, 134, 147, 111, 113, 123, 128, 131, 135, 136, 138,
150n, 156, 158, 182, 185, 187, 196, 141, 142, 146, 160, 166, 179, 191, 194,
198, 235236, 237238, 239243, 203205, 207208, 213217, 220, 223,
244245, 247249, 251, 256 228, 231, 247n
Common Good, 226, 234, 236, Merchants, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
240, 241 15, 16, 56, 43n, 57, 89, 124,
Confraternities, 109, 230234 151, 153, 155156, 161, 173,
Corpus Christi, 6170, 135, 137140, 236, 253255
144, 231232, 247n, 252 Mining, 10, 13, 14
Monstrance, 6667, 105
Das Wunderbarliche Gut, 136, 231
Diet of Augsburg (1530), 21, 31, 119n, Obrigkeit, 9n, 239
121
Diet of Nuremberg (15221523), 19 Patricians, 8, 9, 18n, 44, 46,
Diet of Nuremberg (1524), 19 78, 112, 150n, 158n, 187, 232,
Diet of Speyer (1526), 19, 20, 21 233, 235
Diet of Speyer (1529), 5, 20, 42 Peasants War, 12, 62, 150n, 183, 188n,
Dominicans, 22, 23, 28, 29, 44, 77 229, 251
Pyx, 6667
Edict of Worms, 18, 19, 20, 21
Radish, 63, 68, 252
Franciscans, 22, 23, 28, 29, 43, 4351,
4370 Schmalkaldic League, 21, 22
Fraternalism, 230, 232, 234, 236, Schmalkaldic War, 8
241245, 252255 Small Council, 74, 160, 232,
Fraternity of the Common Man, 233, 235
241242, 244, 245 Swabian League, 1012, 187, 188n, 196,
Functionalism, 206, 227229, 246 198199
266 index of subjects
Tailors, 183, 236238 Untertan, 240

Taxes, 10, 13, 24, 56n, 57, 7779,
154155, 187, 235 Weavers, 1213, 52, 53, 71, 72, 74, 75,
Textiles, 12, 13, 15, 151, 155156, 174, 135, 140, 144, 155156, 234235, 242
183, 234 Wittenberg Concord, 21, 41, 42
Transubstantiation, 5, 34, 36, 63,
84n, 98 Zwlfer, 233
INDEX OF PLACES
Bamberg, 90 St. Margareth, 23

Basel, 32n, 39, 90, 93, 151n, 159, 165n, St. Maria Stern, 23, 29
184, 248n St. Martin, 23
Bavaria, 9, 1013, 17, 46, 8384, 85, St. Moritz, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 44,
98n, 235 230232
Blaufelden, 49, 6162 St. Nicholaus, 23, 29
Burgheim, 83 St. Peter, 22
St. Stephen, 22, 23
Heiliges Kreuz (Augustinian), 22, 23, 28, St. Ulrich and Afra, 22, 23, 29, 54,
30, 101, 157, 230, 231 78n, 135
St. Ursula, 23
Lichtenberg am Lech, 161 Strasbourg, 22, 31, 32, 33, 35, 3839,
47, 48, 90, 93, 101, 122, 137, 140,
Memmingen, 123, 150n, 229230, 248 143n, 151n, 176, 178, 184, 197,
Munich, 11n, 83, 84, 161 224, 226, 248n
Swabia, 7, 912, 25, 7778
Nuremberg, 7, 13, 19, 90, 154, 182183 Switzerland, 10, 35, 42
Orlamnde, 87 Ulm, 7
Prague, 84 Venice, 12, 15
Rothenburg ob der Tauber, 49, 174 Wasserburg, 8384

Wittenberg, 1, 22, 26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36,
Schwbisch Gmnd, 49, 54n, 6062 40, 8588, 89, 98n, 118n, 151, 183
St. Anna (Carmelite), 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, Wrttemberg, 9, 1012, 6061
29, 30, 5253, 89, 136137, 144, 145,
167, 173, 230, 231, 239 Zu den Barfern (Franciscan), 23,
St. Georg (Augustinian), 22, 23, 28, 101, 28, 4360, 62, 63, 6567, 7374,
134, 157, 230, 231 7677, 81, 82, 88, 89, 94, 101111,
St. Gertrud, 22 130, 146147, 158, 167, 198, 232,
St. Klara an der Horbruck, 23, 29 243244, 251, 254, 255
St. Magdalena (Dominican), 22, 23, 28, Zurich, 31, 32, 101, 120n, 159163, 167,
29, 44, 77 178, 184, 185, 204, 248
INDEX OF PERSONS
Agricola, Johann, 122 Gossembrot, 1415

Agricola, Stephan, 27, 28, 30, 52, 89, Greiffenberger, Hans, 154
118n, 119n, 164165 Gro, Jakob, 197
Albrecht IV, Duke of Bavaria, 12n, 46 Gro, Veronika, 197
Anwald, Herman, 199 Gynoraeus, Peter, 184185
Artz, 17
Htzer, Ludwig, 159172, 181, 187, 196,
Baumgartner, 1415, 17 197, 200
Beckinger, Wolf, 181 Has the Mason, 7576
Beringer, Hans, 5253, 5758, 79 Herwart, 14, 15, 17, 158n
Bimel, Antoni, 73 Christoph Herwart, 70
Blaurer, Thomas, 162n, 165n, 170n, 171n He, Johannes, 164165
Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Andreas, 5, Hchstetter, 14, 72n
32n, 3638, 40, 8589, 9097, 99n, Hoen, Cornielisz, 32n, 3435
131, 144145, 160, 163, 165, 171, Hofmaier, 158n
174175, 180, 191 Huberinus, Caspar, 98101, 103n,
Brenz, Johannes, 121 106, 122
Bucer, Martin, 32, 3842, 99n, 224, Hubmaier, Balthasar, 24, 185
243, 244 Hummelberg, Michael, 162n, 167,
Bugenhagen, Johannes, 33n, 160162, 170171
164, 168 Hut, Hans, 183184, 186187, 196197,
200201
Charles V (Emperor), 8, 16, 20, 21, 158n
Ickleshamer, Valentin, 174
Dachser, Jakob, 196 Ilsung, 44, 158n
Denck, Hans, 182186, 197 Imhof, 17
Durkheim, Emile, 215216, 227
Johann Forster, 22, 99n
Eck, Johannes, 27, 29, 101
Eleanore of Portugal (Empress), 46 Kag (Kager), Hans, 75, 76n, 7981
Erasmus of Rotterdam, 2627, 36 Kasimir, Margrave of Ansbach, 6162
Keller, Michael, 28, 30, 44, 6970,
Faber, Johann, 2829, 77 82, 8385, 8789, 99, 100111,
Fanacht, Anna, 239 115116, 118134, 145147, 153,
Ferdinand I, Archduke of Austria, 21 157160, 167, 172, 178, 181182,
Laminit, Franz, 5152 185, 198201, 203, 204205, 212n,
Frederick III (Emperor), 1011 217, 222224, 232233, 243249,
Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony, 26 251255
Frosch, Johann, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 52, 81, Kern, Blasius, 48
89, 118n, 122, 161, 173 Kissinger, Paul, 76, 80n
Fugger, 1415, 17, 26, 158n Knoringer, Leonhard, 53, 76
Hans Fugger, 12 Kretz, Matthias, 29, 77
Jakob Fugger, 16
Langenmantel, 17, 158n
Gansfort, Wessel, 34 Eitelhans Langenmantel, 112114,
Geiler von Kaisersberg, Johann, 4748, 187201, 247
50n Ludwig IV (Emperor), 8
270 index of persons
Luther, Martin, 2, 4, 5, 16, 17, 1819, Rode, Hinne, 3436

22, 2627, 2832, 33n, 3436, 37, 38, Rudolph I of Hapsburg (Emperor), 7
39, 4042, 48, 63, 8588, 89, 93, 98n,
102, 105n, 109, 111118, 119n, 120, Sachs, Hans, 154
121, 131, 144, 145, 147, 164, 170, Sailer, Gereon, 99n, 243244
174175, 180182, 185186, 191192, Salminger, Sigmund, 196, 201
195, 198, 200, 203, 204, 220225, Schilling, Johann, 28, 45, 47, 4956,
245249, 256 5870, 7177, 79, 82, 88, 100102,
103n, 154, 157158, 175, 176, 238,
Margaretha, servant of Eitelhans 239, 242, 244245, 251255
Langemantel, 199200 Schmeid, Hans, 28, 30, 101, 157
Marochitanus, Samuel, 160 Schnewyl, Johann, 176182, 189n,
Marschalck (Zoller), Haug, 150157, 191n
176n, 196, 256 Schwarz, Ulrich, 235, 236
Maximilian I (Emperor), 11, 46 Seifried, Johann, 28, 101, 157
Murner, Thomas, 47, 48 Sender, Clemens, 54, 61, 64, 80,
135136, 145146, 147
Nachtigal, Ottmar, 29 Sibito (Siboto), Bishop of Augsburg, 43
Nufelder, Bartholomus, 5152 Sigismund (Emperor), 8
Sixtus IV (Pope), 25, 47, 48n
Oecolampadius, Johannes, 27, 33n, Speiser, Hans, 70, 7576, 7982, 254
3942, 99n, 121, 122, 162, 165n, 170 Speiser, Johann, 27, 29
Otmar, Silvan, 154, 160162, 167 von Stadion, Christoph, Bishop of
Ott, Seckler, 176 Augsburg, 2627, 29
Otter, Peter, 7475 Strau, Jakob, 177178
Peutinger, Konrad, 18, 26, 48n, 58n, 61, Mntzer, Thomas, 40, 87, 88, 184n
70n, 7174
Pfarrer, Mathis, 122 Ulhart, Philipp, 177, 179, 181
Pflam, Hans, 242 Ulrich, Duke of Wrttemberg, 1112
Philipp I, Landgrave of Hesse, 20, 42
Preu, Georg, 76n, 80, 146n Vetter, 17
Vischer, Jorg, 243
Ravensburger, 158n Voglin, Katherina, 134135
Regel, 17
Georg Regel, 161162, 182, 196, 200 Welser, 14, 15, 17, 158
Rehlinger, 158n Sigismund Welser, 146147
Johann Rehlinger, 16n
Ulrich Rehlinger, 71 Ziegler, Clemens, 9799, 137, 140- 143
Rem, Wilhelm, 51 Zwingli, Huldreich, 4, 5, 17, 21, 28,
Rhegius, Urbanus, 27, 28, 29, 30, 52, 3142, 99n, 102, 119, 121123, 145,
7174, 81, 8891, 9497, 99, 101, 147, 160161, 163164, 166, 170, 171,
102, 118n, 161162, 164165, 167, 177, 181, 184185, 200, 203204,
170176, 180182, 197, 254 224225, 228, 245249, 255256

SHCT 158 Van Amberg - A Real Presence - Religious and Social Dynamics of The Eucharistic Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg 1520-1530 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SHCT 158 Van Amberg - A Real Presence - Religious and Social Dynamics of The Eucharistic Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg 1520-1530 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Real Presence

Studies in the History

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/shct

Religious and Social Dynamics of the Eucharistic

Joel Van Amberg

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Van Amberg, Joel.

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Fees are subject to change.

Chapter 1 Augsburg, the Reformation, and

Chapter 2 The Schilling Affair: Populism, Revolt,

Chapter 3 Michael Keller: The Builder of the Sacramentarian

Chapter 4 Sacramentarian Sects in Augsburg and their

Linking the Argument for Moral Improvement with a

Chapter 5 The Communal Dimension of the Eucharistic

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 251

Work Cited .............................................................................................. 257

Index of Subjects..................................................................................... 265

Index of Places ........................................................................................ 267

Index of Persons ..................................................................................... 269

I would like, first of all, to acknowledge my gratitude to a series of

This study reconstructs and interprets the efforts of a devoted group of

This approach has substantially advanced our understanding of the

Throughout the medieval period, the Eucharistic host had func-

distinct political overtones and, in any case, refers to a group with

AUGSBURG, THE REFORMATION, AND THE DEBATE OVER

Political Developments in Late Medieval and Early Modern Augsburg

The free imperial city of Augsburg was founded as a Roman garrison

financial and regulatory powers, which he exercised through his offi-

wealthy guild members joined their patrician counterparts in filling

border and Wrttemberg not far to the west, Augsburg welcomed a

Wrttemberg attacked and seized the imperial city of Reutlingen. This

Economic Developments in Late Medieval and Early Modern Augsburg

Although dedicated to maintaining the citys political liberty, the late

critical. In 1448 taxable wealth in Augsburg was worth 950,000 fl. By

much of the civic elite.26 Katarina Sieh-Burens identifies four major

Augsburg was content to maintain this fiction of unity and formal

Religion and Religious Developments in Augsburg Through the

commune. Additionally, the bishops frequent attempts to undermine

In October 1517 it appeared that a new age in the Augsburg church

Von Stadion, pursuing his own version of church reform, in

attempted to continue living a religious life outside the cloister. Others

A Synopsis of the Eucharistic Debates in the Empire up to the

was Strasbourg genuinely attempting to mediate between Zurich and

Although numerous preachers and theologians played a significant

transubstantiation. He argues that Christ is only present in heaven and

Sacrament convinced him that he and Luther were of very different

In his comprehensive treatise from March 1525, De vera et falsa reli-

Scripture should not be judged according to human reason. No matter

Bucer employs the same spiritualizing hermeneutic that Capito had

actually consisted of three sermons preached by Luther in Wittenberg

THE SCHILLING AFFAIR: POPULISM, REVOLT, AND THE

Throughout the 1520s Augsburgs Franciscan church, Zu den

Church and City: The Development of Zu den Barfern in Augsburg

The Franciscan order arrived in Augsburg between 1221 and 1225,

There is substantial evidence to show that wealthy citizens of Augsburg

Preaching was central to the mission of the Franciscans, and increas-

The Preaching and Program of Brother Hans Schilling

In 1524 another preacher ascended the pulpit who would unleash a

clergy. Wilhelm Rem records in his chronicle that Schilling preached

Of particular concern to the city council was the statement by the

weaver Leonhard Knoringer, a man who later would be implicated in a

occasion he appeared dressed as a soldier, a distinctly unclerical